1.      This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act’) assails the order dated 06.07.2012 in Appeal No. 756/03 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) allowing the appeal of the respondent/complainant and modifying order dated 17.02.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (in short, the ‘District Forum’) dated 31.10.2014 in Consumer Complaint no. 288/1995.

2.      The facts as per the petitioner/Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) are that it notified an Apartment Scheme No. 547 for residential units in Vaishali, Ghaziabad in which the respondent/complainant applied for a residential unit by paying Rs 46,720/- as registration. On 10.05.1989 a Type A apartment was booked at an estimated cost of Rs 4,67,000/- to be paid in 4 instalments by 31.03.1991 with 40% payment to be made prior to the delivery of possession. Rs 1,89,491.12 was paid by 22.07.1991 and a balance of Rs 1,31,800/- was due by 01.08.2000. On 15.08.1994 the petitioner conveyed that House no. SARYU/04 was allotted to the respondent and that the cost had been enhanced to Rs.7,07,400/-. It was stated that the delivery was likely by end 1995. 40% of the payment was to be done in 3 instalments and the balance 60% in 10 annual instalments was to be paid at the time of possession. Petitioner contends that instead of making payment as per this letter, complainant approached the District Forum claiming deficiency in service in not handing over possession in two years as promised in the brochure and increase in the total sale consideration. The petitioner therefore, offered an alternate flat in Yamuna Tower for which consent of respondent was sought with the option of full refund in the alternative. The District Forum vide order dated 17.03.2003, however, decreed full refund with interest @12% p.a. In appeal, the State Commission, vide order dated 06.07.2012 upheld the order of the District Forum with some modification. This order is impugned by way of this revision petition.

3.      The order of the District Forum held as under:

After considering the facts, records and written arguments of the parties and district forum has reached the conclusion that this has been proud beyond doubt that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,89,451.12/- by 22.07.1991 against the flat reserved in his favour in 1989.

But the opposite party was unable to deliver the possession of the flat in Vaishali to the complainant for one or the other pretext. Since this is established by the record that the opposite party could not able to deliver the possession to the complainant hence that is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and therefore, liable to pay the interest to the complainant @ 12% on his deposited amount. It is also settled principle of this learned forum the further relief claimed civil in nature therefore District Forum does not have jurisdiction equivalent civil court to direct the opposite party to give possession of the questioned flat in the scheme to the complainant on the estimated cost moreover the opposite party has legal right to revise the tentative cost of the flat. All other reliefs sought by the complainant are civil in nature which can be granted by the civil court only. The forum is decided to give @12% interest per annum relying upon the judgment which are delv