Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President— The first opposite party in number of C.Ds. which were disposed of by a common order preferred these appeals, questioning the order of the District Forum, Mahaboobnagar.

2. Briefly stated all the complainants in the C.Ds. who are respondents in these appeals joined as members of a scheme, for sale of house plots, floated by the appellant. According to the terms of the scheme that each of the complainants paid Rs. 100/- in the first instance and agreed to pay the balance of 40 monthly instalments depending on the winning of the first, second and third prizes. The total amount payable is Rs. 4000/-. The extent of each plot is 20 ft. x 60 ft., or 30 ft. x 40 ft. It is the case of the complainants that in all most all the cases, except in 3 or 4 cases, where 29 or 30 installments were paid and where the lesser amounts were paid in cases of winners of prizes the complainants paid all the installments. The scheme was completed on 20.1.91. But the opposite parties did not deliver possession and registered the plots immediately after the completion of the scheme. On the other hand on 15.7.1991 the opposite parties wrote a letter to Dr. Seetharama Goud stating that the plots would be provided to all the members within 15 days. But the opposite parties failed to do so. The complainants therefore claimed refund of Rs. 4000/- paid by each of them, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.

3. In the version of the opposite parties, the existence of the scheme and the complainants joining as members of the scheme, and payments of amounts by the complainants, except some little differences was admitted. It is their case that the land under S. Nos. 320, 326, 331, 332 to 336 in the limits of Khambalapura Gram Panchayat was made into plots each of 20 ft. x 60 feet or 30 ft. x 40 ft i.e., 120 sq. feet. The opposite parties applied in advance sometime in October, 1990 to the Gram Panchayat for approval of the lay out with 40 ft. main road and 30 ft. internal roads. The Gram Panchayat referred the matter for approval by Town and Country Planning Authorities. The Authorities directed that the main road should be of 60 feet width and the internal roads of 40 and 33 feet and approved the lay out in L.P. No. 108/91 dated 17.7.1991.Thereafter the opposite parties laid the roads according to the approved lay out and informed all the members about the same and the draw was held ultimately on 13.12.1991 and 316 persons paid the registration fee and those plots were registered in their names, but these complainants without getting the plots allotted and registered in their names with ulterior motives at the instance of the competitors of the opposite parties filed these complaints. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

4. On behalf of the complainants P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-15 were marked. On himself of the opposite parties RW. 1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B28 were marked.

5. On a consideration of the evidence and the arguments advanced the President of the District Forum held that there is no avoidable delay in offering to register the plots. There is no evidence on record to show that the opposite parties have no title and the sufficient number of plots were available and being allotted to the members and infact 360 members were allotted with plots. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaints. But the two members of the District Forum held that there was unreasonable delay on the part of the opposite parties in offering to register the plots, there is some dispute as to the title and that the plots were not sufficient to be allotted to all the members and that the complainants are entitled for refund of the amount paid by them and accordingly directed the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 4000/- each of the complainants wit