ORDER (ORAL) The present Complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Complainants. -2- 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked a flat with the Opposite Party in February 2011. The Complainant was allotted a unit No.PGN-04-1404 in the project Palm Garden, Sector 83, Gurgaon vide allotment letter dated 28.02.2011. The Builder Buyers Agreement was executed on 25.06.2011. The total cost of the flat was ₹94,46,816/-. As per the agreement, possession of the flat was to be handed over within 36 months + 3 months from the date of start of construction. The scheduled date of start of the construction was August 2012 and accordingly, the possession was to be handed over by November 2015. It is the admitted fact that the possession could not be offered by the Opposite Party within the admitted scheduled period. During this period, the Complainant had deposited a sum of ₹89,06,835/- on various dates. The Complaint has been filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in offering the possession of the subject property within the scheduled period; claiming refund of the amount deposited along with interest @ 18% p.a.; seeking refund of sum of ₹56,298/- which was allegedly deducted as delayed payment charges. The Complainant also claimed ₹15 Lakhs towards -3- mental agony, harassment etc. and ₹2 Lakhs towards litigation expenses. 3. The Complaint is contested by the Opposite Party on the ground that although the offer of possession was not made within the scheduled period but it was offered on 22.03.2018, i.e., one year prior to the date of filing of the Complaint; that the delay of 27 months over the scheduled period is not considerable and can be condoned. 4. Parties led their evidences by way of affidavit. We have heard the final arguments. 5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Complainants has submitted that it is a covered case and there are previous orders of this Commission on the same facts and circumstances relating to the same project which are “Paras Chopra vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Complaint No.3439 of 2017 decided on 04.04.2022; Prabjeet Singh vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.1105 of 2018 decided on 20.01.2022 and Anila Jain vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No.2208 of 2017 decided on 11.11.2019”. -4- 6. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party agrees that there are earlier judgments qua the same project and on the same facts and circumstances. 7. Since it is a covered case, we also issue the same directions as were issued in the cases (supra). 8. The Opposite Party shall refund the entire deposited amount of ₹89,06,835/- to the Complainant along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till realisation together with litigation costs of ₹50,000/-. 9. Time for compliance of this above order is two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period. 10. With these directions, the Complaint stands disposed of. | 
