MR. PRABODHA KUMAR DASH, PRESIDENT-            

                    This C.C.Case No. 14/2020 taken up today for order. Heard Learned Counsel for Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Ops. Perused the relevant documents as available on record.

 Brief fact

                      The Complainant being a poverty stricken person had a cabin in which the Complainant carried on shoe shop business for his livelihood out of such income. There was an advertisement by Opp.Parties for shop room at Tinimuhani, Kendrapara. The Complainant responding to such publication approached the Opp.Parties. As per direction of the Opp.parties, the Complainant deposited money before the Opp.parties in three dates. The receipt deposited before this Commission is Rs. 11,500/- on dt. 22/07/1998, vide receipt No. 3991/1998, again Rs. 11,500/- on dt. 20/05/1999 vide Receipt No. 4757 and finally Rs. 27,000/- on dt. 24/04/2001 vide receipt No. 597/- issued by Municipality, Kendrapara. The Opp.Parties in their objection admitted that, they have received Rs. 50,000/- on dt. 26/08/2020 therefore the acknowledgment itself denied issue of limitation.

                   The authorities could not allotted the shop room after many request letters sent by the Complainant as shown on record. On the other hand the Opp.Parties in their written version admitted that, they have received Rs. 50,000/-  in three(3) different dates. The authorities failed to produce the rules for allotment. Whether as per the advertisement there was a lottery system or the same introduced after receiving money from the beneficiary. Being a public authority, Opp.Parties failed to produce relevant documents as necessary to come to a conclusion in the case in hand. The Commission can’t wait till the Opp.Parties filed their documents as per their sweet will. In such a point benefit of doubt always goes in favour of Complainant due to the letter & spirit of beneficial legislation enacted occupying in mind for welfare of the Consumer by the legislator. Opp. Parties kept the money from last payment 2001 & kept it for more than 20 years, prejudiced, the Complainant suffered a lot which can’t be compensated in anyway. Benefit arising out of such money must be equally compensated to the complainant.

Theory of unjust enrichment better applicable in this case. Opp.parties received the benefit out of such payment for more than 20 years should return principal and interest thereon. The Opp.parties are liable as per law of restitution with interest to the Complainant. If restitution not granted by this Commission, the Complainant suffer legal injury and which needs for the end of justice.

                    As per contract Act, Sec-70 & Sec-73, which says that you cannot unjustified enrich yourself by retaining anything delivered to you which does not belong to you and you must return it to the person from, whom you have received it. Restitution in the benefit which was enjoyed by the Opp.parties at the cost of the Complainant wholly unjustified. The Complainant’s money kept by Opp.Parties for more than 20 years and it is the duty of Opp.parties to return it with interest. 

                                                           O R D E R

                     From the above observation made by this Commission, to direct the Opp.parties to return  Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant \with interest @6% P.A. from dt. 25.04/2001 till date of payment and also Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony sustained and addition to it, Rs. 2000/- for cost of this litigation to be paid within a period of 45 days, failing which @10% shall be paid till its realization.

                       The C.C.Case is accordingly allowed and no order as to cost.

                          Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.

                     Pronounced in the open Court, this the 6th day of June,2022.

                              I, agree.

                                Sd/-                                            Sd/-

                           MEMBER                             PRESIDENT