JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant booked a residential apartment with the OP in a project namely ‘Unitech Verve’ which the OP was to develop in Sector Pi-II of Greater Noida. Vide allotment letter dated 21.03.2007, Apartment No.1203 in Tower 2 of the aforesaid project was allotted to the complainant, for a consideration of Rs.56,28,600/-. As per clause 4(a)(i) of the terms and conditions of the allotment, the possession ought to have been delivered within 36 months thereof, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered to the complainant by 21.03.2010. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the apartment has not even been offered to him despite he having already paid Rs.59,44,477/- to the OP. The complainant is therefore, before this Commission seeking refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith compensation etc. 2. The OP did not file its written version and therefore, its right to file the said written version was closed vide order dated 30.08.2017. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered the affidavits by way of evidence filed by the complainant. The said affidavits and documents prove the allotment made to the complainant as well as the payment made by him. Since the possession of the apartment has not even been offered to the complainant despite he having already made a substantial payment to the OP, he is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him alongwith appropriate compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that he is restricting his claim to the refund of the principal amount paid by him alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum in terms of clause 4.e. of the terms and conditions of the allotment which reads as under: “4.e. Default: If for any reason the Developer is not in a position to offer the Apartment altogether, the developer shall offer the Allottee(s) an alternative property or refund the amount paid in full with simple interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation on this account.” 5. Though no written version has been filed in this case, several consumer complaints in respect of this very project, have already been rejected in several decisions of this Commission on the grounds on which the aforesaid complaints were contested. 6. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Commission in Dewan Ashwani & Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CC No.282/2012, decided on 07.05.2015. Reliance is also placed upon Consumer Complaint No. 709 of 2015, Ankur Goel Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., decided on 27.07.2016, wherein some additional contentions advanced by the opposite party with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission were rejected by this Commission. Reliance is also placed upon Neha Suri Vs. M/s Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. CC No. 977 of 2015 decided on 04.01.2017 and Kiran Agarwal Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. CC No.1487/2016, decided on 31.08.2017. 7. The complaint is therefore, disposed of with the following directions: (i) The OP shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.59,44,477/- to the complainant alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of each payment till the date of full refund. (ii) The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant. (iii) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today. | 
