Entitlement to compensation is limited to the terms of agreement and proven damages; delays after contractual amendments may not warrant compensation.

1. The complainant who is the respondent in FA / 680/2013 and appellant in FA / 722/2013, entered into an agreement with the appellant in FA / 680/2013 who is the respondent in FA / 722/2013 for purchase of a residential flat admeasuring 850 sq. ft. of built - up area (inclusive of the balcony area). The possession, as per the agreement executed between the parties on 11.11.1995, was to be delivered to the complainant by December 1995. The possession however, was not delivered by December 1995 whereupon a police complaint was lodged by the complainant against the builder. The parties then executed a supplementary agreement dated 2.1.1997 whereby the builder agreed to deliver possession by 30.6.1997 and also agreed to reimburse rent with effect from 1.1.1997. The possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant on 27.11.1997. The case of the complainant is that the actual built - up area of the flat, on measurement, was found out only 704 sq. ft. and thus, the area actually provided was less by 146 sq. ft. The complainant also alleged that the builder had not provided municipal water nor had he provided adequate sewerage facilities as a result of which, he was incurring expenditure of Rs.150 per month on obtaining potable water from outside and the flat buyers had to incur expenditure of Rs.5,00,000 for overhauling sewerage system and for getting the water connection which resulted in every flat owner contributing Rs.20,000 for this purpose. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint claiming (i) the compensation for the short area delivered to him (ii) compensation for the delay in delivery of possession as well as the compensation for not providing potable water and adequate sewerage.

2. The complaint was resisted by the builder which denied any shortage in the built - up area of the flat delivered to the complainant. It was also stated that as per the supplementary agreement, the possession was to be delivered by 30.6.1997 and since possession could not be delivered by that date, alternative accommodation was duly provided to the complainant. As regards sewerage facility, it was stated in the written version filed by the builder that since unauthorized construction was carried out by the flat owners, the builder could not get the requisite Occupancy Certificate as well as regular water and sewerage connection.

3. The State Commission partly allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed as under:
Opponent / Builder is hereby directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.1,67,900 together with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. with effect from 27th November, 1999 till its realization.
Rest of the claims of the Complainant stands dismissed.
Opponent / Builder shall bear its own costs and pay costs of Rs.25,000 to the Complainant.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, both the parties are before this Commission by way of these cross - appeals.

5. As regards the delay in delivery of possession, it is not in dispute that as per the original agreement executed between the parties on 11.11.1995, possession was to be delivered by December 1995. It is also not in dispute that the possession was not delivered by December 1995 and therefore, a supplementary agreement was executed whereby the complainants agreed to grant extension till 30.6.1997. A perusal of Clause 4 of the supplementary agreement would show that on the request of the builder, the complainant agreed to the extension of time on the condition that the builder would reimburse her rent for the period from 1.1.1997 until the date of delivery of possession. Thus, the complainant, while granting extensio