JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) CC/1019/2015 The complainant namely Dr. H.C. Kumar booked a residential flat with the opposite party in the a project namely ‘Vistas’ which the opposite party was to develop in Sector-70 of Gurgaon and Flat No. 0801 in Block B of the aforesaid project was allotted to him for a consideration of Rs.57,99,837/- and other charges. The possession in terms of Clause 4a of the sale agreement dated 07.4.2010 was required to be delivered to the complainant within thirty six months from the date of the said agreement, meaning thereby that the possession ought to have been delivered by 07.4.2013. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession has not been offered to him despite he having paid Rs.62,46,540/- to the opposite party. The complainant is therefore before this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount paid by him, along with compensation. CC/1199/2015 The c complainant namely Pooja Kumar and her husband Kumar Abhishek booked a residential flat in the above referred project and Flat No. 0304 in Block E2 of the said project was allotted to them for a consideration of Rs.69,93,100/- and other charges. In their case, the possession was to be delivered on or before 15.12.2013. The grievance of the complainant is that despite they having paid Rs.69,80,238/- to the opposite party, the possession has not been delivered to them. The complainants are therefore before this Commission seeking refund of the entire amount paid by them, along with compensation. 2. The complaints have been resisted by the opposite party on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in several consumer complaints including CC/1191/2015 Vishal Mehta & Ors. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited decided on 19.7.2017 and CC/548/2014 Koshika Agarwal Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited & connected matters decided on 31.10.2017. Since all those grounds have already been rejected by this Commission, I need not examine them afresh in these complaints. 3. In view of the decisions of this Commission in Vishal Mehta (supra) and Koshika Agarwal (supra), the complaints are disposed of with the following directions: (i) In CC/1019/2015, the opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.62,46,540/- to the complainant, along with compensation in the form of interest at the same rate at which compensation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is finally awarded to the allottees of residential flat in the above referred project, namely ‘Vistas” in the appeals preferred by the opposite party against the order of this Commission dated 08.6.2015 in Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr., CC/427/2014 and connected matters, which are stated to be presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ii) In CC/1199/2015, the opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.69,80,238/- to the complainants, along with compensation in the form of interest at the same rate at which compensation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is finally awarded to the allottees of residential flat in the above referred project, namely ‘Vistas” in the appeals preferred by the opposite party against the order of this Commission dated 08.6.2015 in Satish Kumar Pandey Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. & Anr., CC/427/2014 and connected matters, which are stated to be presently pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (iii) The refund in terms of this order shall be paid within three months of the date on which the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally decides the appeal preferred by the opposite party against the decision of this Commission in Satish Kumar Pandey (supra). (iv) The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation in each complaint. | 
