Seems like apples and apples to me.
You cannot simply throw out data you don't like and then claim your model fits! The error in those points is known, quantified, and taken into account. And your comparison is wrong - the parameters of dark matter are part of the standard fit to the CMB, not anything extra. But that is really the least of the problems with this model.
Check out page 22 of Narlikar, Burbidge, and Vishwakarma. The discussion around equation (46) is really quite comical. You see, eq. (46) is a
totally ad hoc fitting function -
it is not derived from their model! In other words they are simply
positing - by fiat - that there are fluctuations in the CMB, which they model as a pattern of sharp edged and Gaussian profile spots. With the six parameters in that ad hoc ansatz, they find a best fit - and it's not very good!
It's totally meaningless. Given any data set at all you can always find a fitting function, but without a model for where that fitting function came from... you've got nothing.
In real cosmology there is a set of equations, derived from fundamental laws of physics, from which one can
compute the CMB spectrum. It's remarkable - amazing, actually - that such a thing is possible, and it's a very powerful test of the theory. Here, the fundamental laws are inconsistent and there is no derivation of anything - just an ad hoc function with no relation to the underlying theory.
By the way, let me add that the presence of a ghost field which prevents black holes from forming, aside from the fact that it is inconsistent both quantum mechanically and as a classical field theory, will almost certainly affect structure formation dramatically (because it will slow or prevent entirely the gravitational collapse that leads to the formation of stars and galaxies). I see no mention of that in the paper. I could probably estimate the effects in a few hours, but I'm not going to waste my time.
Searching their paper, the following words never appear:
ghost
causality
causal (except once in a different context)
instability (ditto)
They don't mention even once the problems I pointed out, which is a sign of either unforgivable ignorance (since I'm certain these problems have been pointed out to them many times before - they are totally obvious to anyone with any experience in field theory or modified gravity) or extreme intellectual dishonesty.