Case Brief: Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Sneh Lata Tewari [2010] Insc 478

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Deepak Verma, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan
Date of Judgment: 11 June 2010
Facts of the Case: Haryana Urban Development Authority was feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, preferred by the respondent herein, and First Appeal No. 57/2004, preferred by the appellant against the order of the State Commission, before the Court challenged the same on various grounds. Before the Court commenced the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent informed the Court that amounts awarded by the State Commission have already been paid to the respondent by the appellant, together with interest accrued thereon. Thus, he contended, nothing survives in these appeals. For want of instructions, learned counsel for the appellant was not able to controvert the said averment.
Judgment: After going through the impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the Court did not find any illegality or perversity in the same. Admittedly, there had been a deficiency of service on the part of the appellant and therefore, the appellant had been directed to pay certain amounts to the respondent which was worked out in the impugned order. Apart from this, the appellant had 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. The 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 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 was no merit and substance in the appeals.
Decision: For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals were dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there was no order as to costs.