ACCESS TO JUSTICE TOWARDS THE CREATION OF INCLUSIVE SOCIAL ORDER deposit before the due date of possession till actual payment on the amount paid before due date of possession and after this date, if any amount is deposited, then from the date of deposit till actual payment.” Both the parties – the consumer and the developer – felt dissatisfied with the Commission’s order. The consumer contended that the rate of interest at nine per cent per annum is too low, and that the payment of interest must be from the date of payment of each instalment, and not from the date of last deposit before the due date of possession till actual payment on the amount paid before due date of possession.40 The developers, on the other hand, pleaded that the interest rate of nine per cent is higher than what is envisaged under the Interest Act, 1978, which specifically states that the awarded rate by the Court should “not exceed the current rate of interest”,41 and that the “period for interest should be linked to the estimated date of possession and not the date of payments”.42 The Supreme Court refined the notion of justice by slightly modifying the Commission’s Order. In their evaluative judgement, on principle, “the interest payable on the amount deposited [is required] to be restitutionary and also compensatory.”43 Accordingly, it is held that “interest has to be paid from the date(s) of the deposit of the amounts”,44 and not “from the date of last deposit”, as the Commission granted in its Order.45 Thus, subject to the provision that the “interests shall be payable from the dates of such deposits”, the appeal filed by the purchaser, in the opinion of the Supreme Court “deserves to be partly allowed”.46 However, at the same time, the apex court has unreservedly stated: “we are of the opinion that the interest of nine per cent granted by the Commission is fair and just and we find no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by the Consumer for enhancement of interest.”47 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 See, id., para 20. Section 3 (Power of court to allow interest) of the Interest Act 1978. See, Experion Developers, para 21. Id., para 22.1. Ibid. Ibid, by citing DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. DS Dhanda and Ors. MANU/SC/0744/2019: (2020) 16 SCC 318 (at para 21). Ibid. MANU/SC/0664/2022MANU/SC/0664/2022: AIR 2022 SC 2713. Id., para 22.2. 11