JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :—The seven complainants named above filed this complaint against the builder alleging the deficiencies in the service of the builder—M/s Premier Builders and its partners. The complainants are various retired Government servants and other employees who had booked the flat each with M/s Premier Builders, a partnership firm of which three opposite parties are partners. According to the complainants, they paid the entire consideration for their flats and they have been allotted respective flats. According to the complainants, although they paid the full amount of the consideration of flats, the opposite party on some or the other reasons delayed the possession. Thereafter, the complainants demanded that the flats be registered in their names as per the terms of agreement. The complainants further alleged that the opposite party started demanding Rs. 10,000/- from each of the complainants without any reason. Ultimately, as per the intimation of the opposite party, the complainants in the month of February, 1990 attended the Office of the Registrar of Documents for getting the sale deeds executed but the Registration could not be done as no objection certificate from the Nagpur Improvement Trust was not obtained by the opposite party. Thus according to the complainant, the opposite party did not render proper service as per the terms of agreement and there are the following deficiencies in the service of the opposite party. a) The deficiency of not executing the sale deed although the registration charges are collected by the opposite party. b) The opposite party did not form the association of tenament holders which he is legally obliged. c) The opposite party has not arranged to supply water from the Municipal Corporation to the complainants. d) Thus, the complainant on account of the aforesaid main deficiencies in the service of the opposite party claimed compensation on three grounds. The opposite party in response to the notice of this Commission filed its written version and denied the allegations made in the complaint. 2. Both the parties filed various documents viz. the agreement, deed of partnership, and various other papers and their respective affidavits. 3. We have also heard Shri Dhabe, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Ghare, Advocate for the opposite parties. In order to decide this consumer dispute, the following points arise for our consideration : 1) Whether the complaint is maintainable? Both the parties filed various documents viz. the agreement, deed of partnership, and various other papers and their respective affidavits. 3. We have also heard Shri Dhabe, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Ghare, Advocate for the opposite parties. In order to decide this consumer dispute, the following points arise for our consideration : 1) Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2) Whether there are deficiencies in the service of the opposite party? 3) Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation? The complainants had booked the flats with the opposite parties for a consideration and that they have been placed in possession of the flats are admitted facts. The opposite party had agreed to render the necessary service to the complainants for doing the construction of their flats and to execute the work of construction and other facilities according to the terms of the contract. The activity of the opposite party clearly show that they are engaged in rendering the service to the people by constructing the flats for consideration. Since the complainants had paid the payment and have been allotted flats by the opposite party, all the complainants are the consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and therefore, the complainants are consumers. Consequent this complaint is maintainable. The next important point is whether there are any deficiencies in the service of the opposite parties? It is an admitted fact that although the complainants were placed in possession of the flats in the year 1988, after paying the entire consideration, the opposite party has not as yet executed the sale deeds in favour of the complainants. The opposite party, the Premier Builders has entered into an agreement with the complainants in the year 1987. The printed agreement form is placed on record in favour of the complainant Shri V.J. Deshmukh. Among other requirements para 11 and 16 of the said agreement clearly show that there was a condition to execute and convey the sale deed by the builder in favour of the complainants and the refund of Rs. 5,000/- each calculated by the opposite party towards the registration charges. Each complainant has also claimed Rs. 25,000/- each as compensation for harassing it and mental torture. We find that Rs. 10,000/- from each complainant has been collected by the opposite party towards the formation of an association and for execution of the sale deed. 5,000/- each calculated by the opposite party towards the registration charges. Each complainant has also claimed Rs. 25,000/- each as compensation for harassing it and mental torture. We find that Rs. 10,000/- from each complainant has been collected by the opposite party towards the formation of an association and for execution of the sale deed. Since the opposite parties have not formed the association and did not execute the sale deed, each complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 10,000/-, which is being utilised by the opposite party without any justification. The complainants have also prayed for a direction, directing the opposite party to complete all the formalities to obtain the N.O.C. In view of the dispute as regards the grant of N.O.C. for want of certain formalities to be completed on the part of the opposite party, it would not be proper for this Commission to give such direction. Similarly, we find that the demand of complainants to claim interest on the amount of Rs. 80,000/- and the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- by each flat owner also cannot be accepted for want of material on record. However, we find that since the opposite party has committed serious deficiencies mentioned above, the complainants deserve to be compensated by granting nominal amount of compensation. In our view, it would meet the ends of justice if each complainant is granted Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for the deficiency in the service. 5. The complainants also have argued that complainants have paid to the opposite party Rs. 1,60,000/- towards the price of the plot purchased in an auction from the N.I.T. As against this, the opposite party has collected Rs. 3,20,000/- from the complainants. It is, therefore, earnestly urged that the opposite party has collected a profit of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the complainants on this count. There is considerable substance in the submission of the complainants but since this claim being beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission, the complainants may file their claim in the Civil Court if so advised. Hence, we pass the following order :--- ORDER 6. The opposite party shall refund to each of the complainants Rs. 10,000/- towards the Registration charges and formation of the association charges. This amount shall carry interest from the date of receipt by the opposite party till payment at the rate of 18% p.a. The opposite party shall pay to each complainant Rs. The opposite party shall refund to each of the complainants Rs. 10,000/- towards the Registration charges and formation of the association charges. This amount shall carry interest from the date of receipt by the opposite party till payment at the rate of 18% p.a. The opposite party shall pay to each complainant Rs. 2,500/- as compensation. The opposite party shall grant to the complainants Rs. 500/- as costs. The rest of the claims of the complainants are rejected. Order accordingly. *****