JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 11.07.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1008 of 1997 filed by the Respondent whereby the order dated 17.05.1997 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.1490 of 1993 of the Petitioner was modified, ex parte. 2. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the Petitioner had booked a flat in the Kauchambi Apartment, Phase-II Scheme of the Respondent for estimated cost of ₹1,40,000/-. He filed the Complaint before the District Forum after the offer of possession of the flat was made to him on 14.12.1993 whereby the Respondent had also asked the balance payable amount. Thereafter, after the order of the District Forum dt. 17.05.1997, whereby the respondent was directed to hand over the possession of the subject property and the petitioner complainant was directed to pay the balance payable amount, the respondent wrote a letter dt.02.08.1999 demanding a sum of ₹17,135/- from the petitioner, which also included the interest on the delayed payment towards the instalments. The Respondent has charged the penal interest @ 18% p.a. The complainant filed the complaint alleging that the civic facilities were not provided at the subject property and, therefore, it was not possible for him to take possession of the subject flat. The complainant also complaint of the unfair trade practice was filed on the part of the respondent. 3. The plea of the Respondent was that the cost for which the flat was booked was estimated cost and the final cost of the construction was to be determined at the time of offer of possession and accordingly, the demand was raised when an offer of possession was made. It is also stated that the Petitioner had also defaulted in paying the instalments and according to the agreement between them, the interest on the delayed payment @ 18% p.a. was charged. It is submitted that the Complaint was frivolous and was liable to be dismissed. 4. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the record, reached to the following conclusion: “In this regard Forum has heard both the parties and examined the document available on record. As per the respondent complainant has to make payment of the balance amount and they are ready to give possession of the building to the complainant provided he deposit the remaining amount. In such situation complainant is directed that he should deposit the remaining amount within the specific periods and should complete the necessary formalities. Complainant is awarded ₹1,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation. The possession should have been given till December, 1990 but possession is not given till date therefore, complainant is entitled to receive interest on the amount deposited by him. ORDER Therefore, accepting the complaint of the complainant the respondent is directed that within three months of this judgment they will develop the allotted building with necessary civil amenities and will give the possession of the same to the complainant and they will pay interest on the deposited amount from 01.01.91 to date of possession @ 18% per annum. Beside this respondent will pay to the complainant compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation ₹1,000/-. Here it is mentioned that if any amount is to be paid by the complainant regarding the concerned building then the respondent will have a right to adjust it in the amount to be paid to the complainant. 5. The Respondent had challenged the order of the District Forum in Appeal before the State Commission. The Petitioner, however, did not attend the proceedings before the State Commission despite service of summons of the Appeal. The State Commission after hearing the arguments of the Respondent and perusing the relevant record, reached to the following conclusion: “We had examined the record. From the examination of the record it is clear that reservation letter was issued to the complainant on 15.05.2008. The total value of the building was Rs.1,40,000/-, but it appears that appellant has increase the final value of the building. Possibly because of this reason the complainant has not deposited the remaining amount. Before us complainant/respondent is not present but from the reexamination of the record it is clear that Ghaziabad Development authority has written letter to the complainant to take the possession of the building and the remaining amount was demanded. Before us there is no such record that complainant has fulfilled the complete formalities and has made the payment of the remaining amount. In such situation there is no justification of awarding Rs.1,000/- as compensation and payment of interest from 01.01.1991 to the date of possession at the rate of 18% per annum. As a result this appeal is liable to be accepted partially. ORDER The present appeal is accepted partially and the order/judgment dated 17.05.1997 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad, is confirmed with this amendment that appellant will give the possession of the disputed building with the necessary Civil amenities to the complainant, after fulfilment of the necessary requirements and payment of the remaining amount. The amount of compensation and interest awarded by the district Forum is cancelled. The parties will bear their own cost of appeal. The copy of this judgment will be made available to the parties as per rule.” 6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant. In the present Revision Petition, the Complainant has challenged the demand of increased cost of the flat on the ground that the Complainant was not liable to pay any increase in the cost of the flat and interest on the delayed payment. It is noteworthy here that there is a clear finding of the District Forum in the order dt.17.05.1997 that the Complainant is liable to pay the balance amount to the Respondent before taking possession of the subject flat. This finding of the District Forum has not been challenged by way of Appeal by the Complainant before any Forum. Also in the Appeal filed by the Respondent, the Petitioner remained ex parte and did not challenge the direction of the District Forum to him to pay the balance amount to the respondent. This finding has thus attained finality and the Complainant cannot challenge this finding in the Revision Petition, which has been filed against the order of the State Commission before whom he did not raise any such objections. 7. Even otherwise the admitted facts are that the cost of the subject flat at the time of its booking was an estimated cost. The complainant/ petitioner had also not produced any evidence before the District Forum to controvert the contentions of the respondent that he had delayed in making the payments towards the cost of the subject property. The evidences on record clearly justifies that the demand of the respondent. It is apparent that there is finding of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in providing the civic amenities. The Complainant is entitled to be compensated for this deficiency on the part of the Respondent. The Respondent has already handed over the possession of the subject flat as per the direction of this Commission on 01.07.2019 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. 8. I, therefore, modify the order of the State Commission and issue the following directions: (i) The Respondent shall pay by way of compensation, interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount of the Petitioner from 01.01.1991 till the date of possession; (ii) The Petitioner shall also pay to the Respondent the amount due as on 14.12.1993 along with interest @ 18% p.a. to be calculated till the date of such payment; (iii) I also award cost of litigation to the Petitioner to the tune of ₹6,000/-. 9. The parties are free to sit together for the calculation of the payable amount and after adjustment, balance shall be paid as per such calculation. 10. With these directions, the Revision Petition stands disposed of. | 
