N.D.V. Bhat, President - In all these appeals, similar questions of law and facts are involved, with the result, they are taken up together-for disposal by this common judgment.

2. A few facts need to be stated for the disposal of these appeals:

The Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society Limited(hereinafter referred to as ‘The Society’ for short) situated at Malleswaram, Bangalore is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959(for short ‘K.C.S. Act’). The Complainants who are arrayed as parties in the aforesaid appeals are among the members of the said society. The said society thought in terms of acquiring lands for the purpose of providing house sites to its members. The Complainants who were the members of the society applied for sites and deposited certain amounts towards the cost of the sites. It appears that the society, for the reason or the other was not in a position to allot the sites to the complainants. The complainants obviously got frustrated. They wanted to take back atleast the amount which they had deposited with the society. The society, however did not respond to the request of the different complainants. Under the circumstances, the complainants approached the District Forum praying for the refund of the amount deposited by them along with interest thereon as prayed for in their , complaints.

3. The complaint in each of the Complainants was resisted by the Opp. Party-Society. The deficiency in service alleged by the Complainants in their respective complaints was denied by the society. It appears that the society also took up a contention that they were not in a position to allot the sites for reasons beyond their control' and on account of the reasons reflected in their version. The society prayed for the dismissal of the complaints.

4. Each of the complaints was enquired into by the District Forum. The District Forum, in substance, took the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of the society. It also took the view that the amounts found due in the respective complaints to each of the complainants were payable by the society. It also took the view that interest at the rate reflected in its impugned orders was also payable by the society. In the result, the District Forum, in the various complaints, passed the orders which are challenged by the Opp: Party-Society before this Commission.

5. The society is the Appellant in Appeal Nos. 201/98, 202/98, 204/98, 205/98, 206/98, 207/98, 208/98, 209/98, 425/98 and 659/96. It is the Respondent in Appeal No. 165/98 and 725/96. We may point out here that two of the Complainants have preferred Appeal No. 165/98 and 725/96 not being satisfied with the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsels appearing on either side. In Appeal No. 425/98 we have heard the party in person for the Respondent.

7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar, the following points arise for consideration in these appeals:

(1) Whether the complaints filed by the different• Complainants before the District Forum are not maintainable?

(2) Whether the Complainants in the respective complaints are entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for?

(3) What order?

Point No.(1):

8(a). There is no dispute that the Complainants in the different complaints are the members of the society. There is also no dispute that the society is a registered society. The dispute between the Complainants and the society is in relation to the refund of the amounts deposited by the former with the latter, towards the-cost of the sites. If that be so, the question which would fall for consideration is as to whether the dispute is hit by the mischief of Section 70 of the K.C.S.Act. At this juncture, it would be convenient to refer to the portion of the provisions of Section 70 of K.O.S. Act relevant in the context of the submissions made at the bar on either side. Section 70(1) reads as under:

“70. ....

(1) Not with standing any