IMPORTANT POINT
On principle of parity alone complainants are entitled to identical reliefs.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant Neha Suri booked a residential apartment with the opposite party in a project, namely, ‘Verve’ which the said opposite party was to develop in Greater Noida. Fat No.803 in Tower-2 of the aforesaid project admeasuring 1588 Sq.ft. was allotted to her. The booking was made by her on 5.2.2007 and the allotment letter was issued to her on 15.3.2007. The possession was to be delivered to her within 36 months from the date of the Buyers Agreement, i.e., by 15.3.2010. Her grievance is that though she has already paid Rs.46,09,148/- to the opposite party, the possession has not been offered to her. She is, therefore, this Commission seeking refund of the amount paid by her to the opposite party along with compensation in the form of interest. The aggregate of the principal amount paid by the complainant and compensation claimed by her by way of interest comes to more than Rs.1 crore.

2. The compliant has been resisted by the opposite party on the similar grounds which this Commission has already rejected in a number of consumer complaints, including CC No.708 of 2015 – Rama Sahdev Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. decided on 16.9.2016, CC No.479 of 2015 – Alka Agrawal & Vani Rao Rangaraj Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., decided on 16.9.2016, Consumer Complaint No. 535 of 2015 - Ravi Marwah & Mrs. Aarty Marwah Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Consumer Complaint No. 536 of 2015 - Mr. Amit Bhatia & Mrs. Bhawna Bhatia Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., decided on 20.5.2016.

3. The following was the view taken by this Commission in Ravi Marwah (supra) and Amit Bhatia (supra):

“4. The learned counsel for the complainants has drawn our attention of the decisions of this Commission in Dewan Ashwani & Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.282 of 2012, wherein in a complaint relating to the booking made by the complainants in this very project i.e. Unitech Verve in Sector Pi-II of Greater Noida, this Commission, after rejecting all the contentions advanced by the opposite party, directed the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount till realization. The complainants therein were also paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by them at the hands of the opposite party. Being aggrieved form the aforesaid order passed by this Commission, the opposite party approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of an appeal. Vide order dated 09.10.2015, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the reference of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the opposite party granted them leave to withdraw the said appeal with liberty to approach this Commission with some kind of proposal in terms of Clause 4(e)”.

Since a decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Commission, directing refund of the principal amount paid by the buyer, along with interest @ 18% per annum on that amount, has been accepted by the opposite party by withdrawing the appeal which it had preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the complainants, on the principle of parity, are entitled to an identical relief. Therefore, we need not independently examine the ground taken by the opposite party for resisting these complaints.

4. In Consumer Complaint No. 709 of 2015, Ankur Goel Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. relating to this very project and decided on 27.7.2016, some additional contentions were advanced by the opposite party and were rejected by this Commission, taking the following view:

5. The learned counsel for the complainants also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudha Jain Vs. Chief Manager & Anr. [(2007) 5 SCC 717]. In Sudha Jain (supra), the State Commission directed return of the complaint for being filed before the District Forum, on the ground that the claim made in the complaint was exaggerated. The order o