As per case facts, the respondent booked a residential apartment and paid almost the entire sale consideration, but the appellant developer failed to deliver possession within the stipulated time, leading ... the respondent to file a consumer complaint. The NCDRC directed the developer to complete construction, obtain an Occupancy Certificate, and hand over possession while also paying compensation for the delay. The developer appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction and disregarded contractual terms, arguing fixed contractual compensation should prevail. The central legal question was whether the NCDRC's statutory power to award compensation for deficiency in service could override one-sided contractual clauses limiting developer liability for delay. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the NCDRC's order, holding that consumer fora's jurisdiction is statutory, not merely contractual, and they are empowered to grant just and reasonable compensation for deficiency in service, overriding unfair contractual terms. The appellant was directed to obtain the Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession within six months, continuing to pay compensation until then.