ORAL The case of the Complainant is that he had booked a Unit No.502, Block No.CI on 5th Floor of 2332 sq. ft. in “Sunbreeze project” of Gurgaon for a total consideration of ₹76,10,865/-. The Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 16.11.2009. As per the terms and conditions of the said Agreement, the Opposite Party was under obligation to hand over the physical possession of the flat within 36 months, i.e., by 16.12.2012. It is submitted that the Complainant had been regularly making the payments as per the agreed payment plan. It is submitted that despite the delay of five years, possession has not yet been given to the Complainant and no Occupancy Certificate has so far been obtained. -2- According to the Complainant, no construction activities are going on at the site since 2014. On these contentions, Complainant has prayed for refund of his deposited amount of ₹67,09,950/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. 2. Notice of the Complaint was issued to the Opposite Party. Despite service of notice, Opposite Party did not file any Written Statement within the statutory period. Therefore, their right to file Written Statement was closed vide order dated 09.11.2017. 3. Complainant has led his evidence. 4. Opposite Party had taken objection that since an application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was pending consideration in Complaint No.608 of 2016 relating to the same project, the present Complaint was not maintainable. Opposite Party was given an opportunity to place on record the certified copy of the order passed in the said Complaint. 5. This order of this Commission was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 29.03.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed this Commission to hear the Complaint and decide it. Accordingly, final arguments are heard. 6. Complainant has furnished his evidence by way of Affidavit. The Complainant has duly proved that he had booked a flat with -3- the Opposite Party and had paid a sum of ₹67,09,950/- on different dates. He has also proved that the construction at the site is not complete and that Opposite Party has failed to offer possession within the statutory period as per terms and conditions of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. Opposite Party despite being served has not filed any Written Statement and therefore, there is no denial of these contentions. Even otherwise, the documents placed by the Complainant along with affidavit of evidence duly support these contentions. The Complainant has proved the deficiency in service by Opposite Party. 7. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Complainant on instructions states that the Complainant confines his prayer to refund of his deposits with interest @ 10%p.a. from the date of deposits. 8. It is evident that the Opposite Party has failed to discharge their liabilities under the agreement and has failed to give possession to the Complainant. 9. The Complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to refund the deposited amount of ₹67,09,950/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of respective deposits towards -4- compensation to all his grievances. Cost of litigation of ₹25,000/- is also awarded to the Complainant. 10. With these directions, the present Complaint stands disposed of. | 
