As per the case facts, a developer failed to deliver possession of an apartment as agreed, leading the consumer to seek a refund with interest. The Consumer Commission ordered a ... refund with interest, which the developer appealed. The consumer also appealed for a higher interest rate. The question arose regarding whether interest on the refund should be paid from the dates of deposit and if the granted interest rate was fair. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's order, directing the developer to refund the amounts with interest from the dates of deposit due to the delay. The Court found the 9% interest rate granted by the Commission to be fair and saw no reason to increase it, dismissing the developer's appeal and partly allowing the consumer's appeal.