JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:--This is a complaint filed by complainants against the opposite party - Developers Builders. The complainants Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that they booked two flats each for themselves. The cost of each flat was Rs. 1,10,000/- and the cost of land Rs. 55,000/-. Thus, the first two complainants alleged that they booked two flats for consideration of Rs. 3,45,000/-. Under an agreement dated 11-7-1991 complainants Nos. 3 and 4 similarly booked two flats for a total consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/- on Ist floor. All the four complainants alleged that they have paid the full consideration to the opposite party of the four flats according to the terms of agreements. Complainant No. 1 alleged that he has paid Rs. 1,54,500/- till 14-10-1992. Second complainant alleged that she has paid Rs. 1,67,500/- till 10-12-1991. The complainants Nos. 3 and 4 alleged that till 19-8-1992, they paid total amount of Rs. 2,90,000/-. The complainants alleged that the opposite party had agreed to complete the construction of flats within 12 months from the date of commencement of the work. The building plan was sanctioned on 16-10-1990 by the competent authority. The complainants alleged, the progress of the work of construction of flats was very slow and finally construction work stopped. The complainants alleged that the opposite party has caused delay in completing the construction of flats and handing over the possession. The complainants further alleged that vide letter dated 4-9-1993, the opposite party agreed in writing to place the complainants in possession by 30-9-1993. Yet, there was no progress and no possession was delivered to them as agreed. The complainants Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that due to the delay in delivery of possession, the opposite party agreed to pay Rs. 3,000/- p.m. towards compensation for the delayed period and had also issued cheques for the amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation. However, the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. The complainants, therefore, alleged that these are the instances of deficiencies in the promised service of the opposite party. 3,000/- p.m. towards compensation for the delayed period and had also issued cheques for the amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation. However, the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. The complainants, therefore, alleged that these are the instances of deficiencies in the promised service of the opposite party. Despite their repeated requests and efforts the complainants could not get the possession of their respective flats and, therefore, filed this complaint alleging deficiencies in the service of opposite party claiming possession of their respective flats or in the alternative refund of their deposited amounts together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payments till the realisation and Rs. 3,000/- p.m. plus Rs. 1,00,000/- to each complainant towards the compensation. 2. In response to notice under section 13 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the opposite party filed its written version in the form of preliminary objection. The opposite party in its reply raised some technical objections. The first objection is about the amalgamation of the claims of four complainants. However, the opposite party did not dispute the payments made by the four complainants towards the booking of the flats. The other objection raised by the opposite party is that complaints are barred by limitation. 3. We have heard Mrs. Padolay, advocate for the complainants. However, none appeared for the opposite party. 4. On going through the allegations made by the complainants and the documents on record, the following points arise for our consideration. i) Whether there is illegality in amalgamating the claims of four complainants in a common consumer dispute? ii) Whether the claims of complainants are barred by limitation? iii) Whether there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party? 5. Since the total amount of compensation claimed by four complainants do not exceeed the pecuniary jurisdiction and since the opposite party is the same and a common question of facts and law is involved, in our view, there is no illegality in joining the four complainants together in this consumer dispute. The objection is without any substance and is hereby rejected. The second contention raised by the opposite party is also not maintainable since the complaint has been filed within two years from the date 4-9-1993, on which the opposite party issued a letter in favour of complainants Nos. 1 and 2 agreeing to place them in possession of the flat by 30-9-1992. The second contention raised by the opposite party is also not maintainable since the complaint has been filed within two years from the date 4-9-1993, on which the opposite party issued a letter in favour of complainants Nos. 1 and 2 agreeing to place them in possession of the flat by 30-9-1992. Thus, the opposite party has agreed to place the complainant in possession on 30-9-1992 as stated above. The cause of action was surviving on 30-9-1992 and complaint filed within the limitation from the date 30-9-1992 as admitted by the opposite party. The complainants cause of action is surviving till the date they get the possession of the flats. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainants claim are barred by limitation. This contention also must fail. 6. The most crucial point to be decided in this complaint is whether the service of the opposite party is deficient in any manner. The letter dated 4-9-1992 written by opposite party in favour of complainants Nos. 1 and 2 is very eloquent. In that letter it is clearly admitted by the opposite party that the flats are incomplete and therefore, promised to complete the construction of the flats by 30-9-1992. There is yet another circumstances which also is very suggestive of the deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The opposite party agreed in writing in the said letter that he will pay Rs. 3,000/- per month towards compensation for the delayed period till the possession is awarded to the complainants. This admission therefore, clearly proves the deficiency of keeping incomplete construction within 12 months from the date of agreement. The date of agreement is dated 11-7-1991 and, therefore, the construction should have been completed by 11-7-1992. But till the issue of the aforesaid letter dated 4-9-1992, the flats were not fully constructed in terms of agreements. Even till the filing of this complaint, the complainants flats are not ready for occupation. Thus, the complainants have proved the allegations of deficiency in the promised services of the opposite party. The opposite party not only failed to construct the flats within the stipulated period but accepted the liability to compensate the complainants Nos. 1 and 2 by paying Rs. 3,000/- per month due to failure to complete the construction. The opposite party would have never agreed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the complainants Nos. The opposite party not only failed to construct the flats within the stipulated period but accepted the liability to compensate the complainants Nos. 1 and 2 by paying Rs. 3,000/- per month due to failure to complete the construction. The opposite party would have never agreed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the complainants Nos. 1 and 2 had the construction of the flats been fully completed. The deficiency, in the service of the opposite party , therefore, is fully established due to implied admission of the opposite party. 7. Lastly, we have to consider whether the complainants; are entitled to claim possession or in the alternative refund of their booking amounts together with 18% p.a. interest from the date of payment till realisation and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- per month agreed compensation for the delayed period. We find that the complainants request for placing them in possession is very genuine and legitimate in view of the written agreements. Even the opposite party has agreed in writing to place them in possession of flats by 30-9-1992. Therefore, there is no difficulty in directing the opposite party to place the complainants in possession of their respective flats. As regards the claim of complainants for Rs. 3,000/- per month for the period of delay it is found that the opposite party agrred to pay such a compensation to complainant Nos. 1 and 2 only vide his letter dated 4-9-1992. However, there is no such commitments so far as complainant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned. In any case, the willingness shown by the opposite party to pay compensation for the delayed period indicates that he is at fault and he agreed to compensate the complainants on his failure to complete the construction of flats during the stipulated period in terms of agreement. Under these circumstances, considering the admissions of the opposite party, we find that the claim of the complainants 1 and 2 for Rs. 3,000/- per month for compensation appears to be correct. The complainants have also prayed in the alternative that if they are not able to get the possession of flats due to the deficiency in the service of the opposite party, then the complainants have alternatively prayed for the refund of their booking amounts together with 18% p.a. interest and also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation. 1,00,000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation. It is very apparent that the price of the flats must have gone up now, and if opposite party is directed to refund the booking amount to the complainants, it will not be a just compensation for the loss and injury suffered by complainants. Morevoer, they are not likely to get the flats of similar size and price now in view of the esclation of price. Therefore, mere refund of paid up booking amount to complainants in the event opposite party fails to place complainants in possession of their respective flats will not be just compensation considering the proved deficiency. It will be, therefore, appropriate order that if the opposite party fails to place the complainants in possession of their respective flats within 30 days from the receipt of this order, in addition to the refund of their booking amounts together with 18% p.a. interest from the date of booking till realisation, the opposite party shall also is required to be directed to pay to first and second complainants Rs. 50,000/- and to third and fourth complainant Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 8. The complaint of four complainants is allowed. The opposite party M/s. 4 Wall Developers, Promoters and Builders are hereby directed to place each of the complainants in possession of their respective flats within 30 days from the receipt of this order as it is and where it is basis. If the aforesaid order of possession is not complied with by the opposite party within the given time, then each of the complainant shall be refunded their paid booking amounts by opposite parties jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payments for booking of flats till realisation. The opposite parties are also directed to pay to complainants 1 and 2 together Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and complainants 3 and 4 together Rs. 3,000/- per month towards compensation from 30-9-1993 till the date of actual possession. The opposite party also shall pay to first two complainants towards compensation Rs. 50,000/- and to 3rd and 4th complaints Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. The opposite party shall also pay to the each complainant Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs. Complaint allowed. *****