J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The arguments and the written submissions are contrary to the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the Complainants. Counsel for the Opposite Parties has also not filed the written arguments, as prayed. Counsel for the Complainants is directed to explain, how all the Complainants are having the similar interest. He argued that the money be refunded but in the written submissions, they have requested that possession of flat be given to Daizy Rani and her son.

Put up for clarification on 7.12.2015.

Dated: 7.12.2015

ORDER (ORAL)

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—This order shall decide the above mentioned three complaints, which are between the same Builder OP and the various allotees/consumers. The facts of these cases are almost same and the same point of Law is involved. M/s MVL Limited OP-the Builder floated a scheme in the year 2006 and aggressively marketed the said project promising high living luxury apartments, specially designed Swimming Pool, 24 hour power back up, Modular Kitchen, Covered Car Parking, Garden, Play Area, Security Clu