MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE TRUST vs BENUDHAR PANDA

THESE two above appeals are taken up together since the facts relating to both are same. In C.D. Appeal No. 559/96 arising out of C.D. Case No. 10/96, complainant Benudhar Panda is the respondent and in C.D. Appeal No. 560/96 arising out of C.D. Case No. 89/95, one Sadhanarani Bhatacharya is the respondent. By judgment dated 29.6.1996 in both these cases the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and cost and further directed for giving the possession to the complainants of the respective shop rooms.

COMPLAINANT Benudhar Panda paid Rs. 8,000/- which included security money and advance salami for allotment of a shop room that was under construction by the Trust at Paradeep. The Trust though allotted shop No. 5 to the complainant the same was allotted to one Gagan Mangaraj though the latter was a late applicant for such allotment. COMPLAINANT challenged this action of the Trust as arbitrary and humisical and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,62,000/- for having sustained loss and for mental agony etc. COMPLAINANT Sadhanarani Bhatacharya paid Rs. 9,500/- towards the security money and advance salami and though initially was allotted shop room No. 8 the same was allowed to one Rajendra Kumar Tripathy though the latter being also a late applicant for such allotment. Subsequently when one shop No. 8 was allotted to her she found it of the size of the room to be smaller than the required size i.e. 8'' x 10''. The complainant refused to accept this allotment and since her several requests for allotment of the shop room of her choice were rendered fruitless she approached the District Forum. The District Forum on going through the materials on record found that there was deficiency in service by the Trust Board in not allotting the shop rooms to these applicants who had paid money in advance and by the date fixed. The Trust is in appeal in both the cases. We have heard the Counsel for both sides and perused the impugned order and the materials on record. So far the case of Benudhar is concerned the opposite parties did not put their appearance and, therefore, the uncontroverted allegations of the complainant that he had deposited the amount in time and the persons who was allotted room No. 5 was a late applicant have to be accepted as correct. So far as the case of the complainant Sadhanarani is concerned, we have perused the copy of the Resolution No. 3 dated 7.3.1994 where it was resolved that the persons who were not allotted shop rooms in the first phase and they were not interested for allotment in the second phase would be required to take back their money with 6% simple interest. This resolution infact does not speak of as to why the complainants who came first and were allotted the shop room Nos. 5 to 8 were not allotted these rooms. The Resolution dated 18.6.1991 required that the applicants who had deposited Rs. 10,000/- and more should be allotted at first phase and the rest would be allotted on priority basis with the subsequent phase. Nothing has been stated by the opposite parties and, therefore, we are not able to accept the case of the Trust that there was any justifiable reasons for not allotting the shop rooms to the complainant''s on priority basis though they had paid the amount well in advance than the persons who applied later. In the case of Sadhanarani Bhatacharya the opposite parties filed their written version but on perusing the same we hold that nothing substantial has been brought out nor there is any counter, as to why the house No. 8 has been allotted to others. Be that as it may, during the course of the argument we had asked the appellant to file affidavit as to whether the complainants could be at all allotted with any other shop rooms. From the affidavit of one Rajkishore Das, the present Managing Trustee we find that the shop rooms would be ready for allotment by March, 2001. Considering this information from the side of the Trust we have taken this material and to hold that the judgment of the District Forum is correct and legally sustainable and it needs no interference. In the result both the appeals are dismissed and we direct the appellant to deliver possession of the shop room 8'' x 10'' to both of them latest by 30th June, 2001. Since the complainants have deposited the money since 1989, they are legitimately to be paid interest at the rate of 10% per annum calculated from the date of the respective deposits till 30th June, 2001 or when the shop rooms will be given possession to them whichever occurs earlier. The amount of interest shall be adjusted towards their rent. If for any reason such delivery of possession of shop rooms are not given to the complainants by 1st of July, 2001 the Trust would be liable to pay back their respective deposited amounts i.e. in case of Benudhar and Rs. 8,000/-, and in case of Sadhanarani Rs. 9,500/- with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of the deposit till payment. Besides Rs. 10,000/- each as compensation for mental agony and loss. Both the appeals are disposed of with the above direction. Orders to be complied by 30th June, 2001 as indicated above. The appeals are dismissed. No cost. Appeals dismissed.