Suresh Chandra, Member—Since both the revision petitions are based on similar facts and involve identical questions of fact and law, they have been taken up and considered together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Respondent No.1 in both the cases are the original complainants. They booked a Pal Peugeot Car 309 on or about 25.10.1995 by depositing Rs.25,000/- with the petitioner who is the authorized dealer of respondent No.2. Petitioner was opposite party No.1 and respondent No.2 was opposite party No.2 before the District Forum. Since there was no progress in the delivery of the said car till the end of September 1997, the complainants cancelled the booking of the said car vide letter dated 3.10.1997 returning receipt-cum-priority card duly signed by them to the opposite party requesting for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.25,000/- together with interest in each case. When the complainants did not receive the amount of refund of their deposit, they issued a legal notice dated 26.5.1999 to the opposite party No.2 but there was no response. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1/respondent No.2 and opp