1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3693-3694  OF  2007

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY       Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SNEH LATA TEWARI           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

Haryana  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.

Before we 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.  

For want of instructions, learned counsel for the  

appellant was not able to controvert the said averment.   

However,  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.   

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

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.    

For  the  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)

New Delhi; June 11, 2010.