Vs. Sneh Lata Tewari  INSC 478 (11 June 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3693-3694
OF 2007 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) :VERSUS:
O R D E R
learned counsel for the parties.
Urban Development Authority feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2004
passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in
First Appeal No. 791/2003, preferred by the respondent herein, and First Appeal
No. 57/2004, preferred by the appellant against the order of the State
Commission, is before us challenging the same on various grounds.
commenced the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent informed us that
amounts awarded by the State Commission have already been paid to the 2
respondent by the appellant, together with interest accrued thereon. Thus, he
contended, nothing survives in these appeals.
of instructions, learned counsel for the appellant was not able to controvert
the said averment.
even after going through the impugned order passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, we find no illegality or perversity
in the same. Admittedly, there has been a deficiency of service on the part of
the appellant and therefore, the appellant has been directed to pay certain
amounts to the respondent which have been worked out in the impugned order.
Apart from this, the appellant has also been directed to pay to the respondent
a sum of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony, along with other reliefs, as she was made
to suffer for a long period and was put to great humiliation.
respondent was allotted a piece of plot in Kurukshetra, Haryana, by the
appellant on 4.5.1981. The said plot was later on exchanged with another plot
and was permitted by the appellant. The site plan thereof was approved only on
30.7.1984. After completing all formalities, second site plan was approved in
the year 3 2004, that is to say, after a period of almost 20 years from the
date of approval of the first site plan. The suit filed by the respondent was
decreed by the Trial Court on 12.9.1995 against the respondent. In the light of
these facts, there is no merit and substance in the appeals.
aforesaid reasons, these appeals are dismissed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)
....................J (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN)
June 11, 2010.