JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:---The 22 complainants have filed this complaint jointly against the opp. parties who are the partners in a partnership firm styled as "Nandan Builders". Admittedly, the opp. parties had volunteered to render services to 22 complainants to construct flats at Pune. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants are in possession of their respective flats shown in table-1 of the complaint. The allegations in the present complaint are as regards the deficiencies in the service of the opp. parties such as wilful neglect to fulfill the legal obligations which has resulted into inconvenience and loss to the complainants. The deficiencies alleged by the complainants are catalogued as under : I) Non-installation of lifts in building Nos. 4 5. The complainants alleged that they contributed for the lifts. No lifts have been installed despite the repeated reminders. In support of their contention, the complainants have filed the receipts which are at page 35 to 43 of the record. Five complainants shown in table-2 of the complaint had contributed Rs. 46,000/- for installation of the lifts. The receipts are placed on record. II) Collection of 4% cost of flat as "security deposit" for payment of so called Sales Tax actually not payable. A total sum of Rs. 83,977/- shown in table-3 of the complaint has been collected by the opp. parties by making false representation that the said amount was payable towards Sales Tax. In support of their claims, the complainants have filed the order of the District Forum, Pune confirmed by the State Commission, Maharashtra. At Ex. 4 on pages 53 to 67 the receipts of the payment made by the complainants to the opp. parties. III) Non formation of co-operative housing society after collecting the charges for formation of the same and retaining the said amount illegally. Although it was the legal obligation cast on the opp. parties to register the society having received the payment for the same from the complainants duly supported vide Ex. 5 on pages 68 to 78, the opp. parties failed to form the society. Ultimately, the complainants themselves formed the society on 29-9-1992. Thus, the opp. parties are in illegal possession of the amount collected from each complainant at the rate of Rs. 500/- per flat. The alleged total amount of Rs. 11,500/- shown in table-4 of the complaint is with the opp. parties. parties failed to form the society. Ultimately, the complainants themselves formed the society on 29-9-1992. Thus, the opp. parties are in illegal possession of the amount collected from each complainant at the rate of Rs. 500/- per flat. The alleged total amount of Rs. 11,500/- shown in table-4 of the complaint is with the opp. parties. IV) Failure to form co-operative housing society causing financial loss to the complainants for purposes of assessment. Due to failure of formation of society of the flat owners the complainants are required to pay more taxes and thus the complainants suffered loss of Rs. 21,715/- on account of deficiencies. The amount so paid by the complainants is shown in table-5 of the complaint duly supported by the receipts at Ex. 6 on pages 72 to 73 of the record. V) Wrongful and illegal charging of escalation price of Rs. 7,515/- of Dr. Argikar which is duly supported at Ex. 8 on page 75. 2. On account of the aforesaid deficiencies, the complainants claimed Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation of each complainant. The total claim is for Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the complainants on account of the aforesaid deficiencies claimed Rs. 1,72,207/- and Rs. 20,000 towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards costs. 3. Notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were sent to the opp. parties dated 4-12-1993, returnable on 5-2-1994. In response to the aforesaid notice the opp. parties despite the receipt of the notices in last week of December, 93 did not file its written version. On the contrary on 5-2-1994 the opp. parties filed an application through Mr. N.B. Ray requesting 60 days time for filing the written version. Since this commission has no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the written version not more than 15 days under section 13(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the request made by the opp. parties could not be granted. However, the complaint was fixed for hearing on 5-4-1994 after a period of 2 months when the appearance was made by the opp. party. However, even then the opp. parties filed the written version on 5-4-1994 without any verification and not supported by any documents. 4. We have heard Shri Patki for complainant and Mr. N.P. Roy for the opp. parties. 5. The complainants allegations are duly supported by jointly filed affidavit and documentary evidence whereas the opp. party. However, even then the opp. parties filed the written version on 5-4-1994 without any verification and not supported by any documents. 4. We have heard Shri Patki for complainant and Mr. N.P. Roy for the opp. parties. 5. The complainants allegations are duly supported by jointly filed affidavit and documentary evidence whereas the opp. parties merely denied their liabilities in their written version. The opp. parties stated in their written version the deficiencies encountered by them as regards the drainage system. It was also stated that the builder was required to pay escalation price due to the delay. It is further contended by the opp. parties that some of the complainants did not pay their consideration but it is not supported by any documentary evidence. As regards the deficiency about the lifts, the opp. parties admitted in para-4 of the complaint that the lifts are not provided in building Nos. 4 5 and promised to install. The opp. parties also expressed their inability to pay to the complainants on account of their financial difficulties. 6. After going through the written version of the opp. parties we are satisfied that the excuse put forth by the opp. parties cannot be granted of not to fulfill their contractual obligations between the parties. Under these circumstances we find that the complainants have proved their allegations and are, therefore, entitled to remove the deficiencies at the cost of opp. parties since the opp. parties have expressed their willingness to proceed further to remove their difficulties as they are financially incapable of doing so. The rights of the complainants cannot be allowed to be neglected, due to inablility on the part of the opp. parties. The deficiencies mentioned above are required to be removed by the opp. parties, by spending the amount received from the complainants. It is, therefore, necessary to allow this complaint which is duly supported by documentary evidence. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 7. The opp. parties are directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 1,72,207/- for removing the deficiencies in their service. However, the rest of the claim of the complainants is hereby rejected. The aforesaid amount be paid within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Complaint allowed. *****