new delhi jun 15 the apex consumer commission has asked real estate major emaar mgf land ltd to pay around rs two crore to a 72yearold woman for failing to hand over an apartment in hyderabad booked eight years ago national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc also directed the company to pay an interest of 10 per cent per annum from 2010 when the complainant had paid the final installment till the full amount is paid back by the builder a bench of justice j m malik asked the builder to pay rs 19389597 to hyderabad resident devikarani rao nallamala rejecting the firms defence that the work could not be completed due to a notification by andhra pradesh government it said the principal deficiency on its firms part is that it went on accepting installments unashamedly even after the notification was published on october 8 2010 the opposite party op is renowned promoter and builder it has projects without number this lady being a widow should have been treated with kid gloves however op was interested to feather its own nest ie to make profits at the cost of others the bench said it further noted that eight years had elapsed and the woman has not got possession of her house and it cannot be said with guarantee that during her life time she would get this house or not it is well said that justice delayed is not only justice denied it is also justice circumvented justice mocked and the system of justice undermined we hereby direct that the amount paid by the complainant be returned to her alongwith interest at the rate of 10 per cent simple interest from dates of deposits till its realisation the bench said according to the complaint nallamala had booked a 3bhk apartment in firms proposed project in 2008 the total consideration of apartment was rs 19389597 which she paid by 2010 and was told that she would get possession of the apartment by mid2011 meanwhile she got to know that andhra pradesh high court had ordered cbi investigation against the firm and there was no chance of getting possession in the near future thereafter the complainant first sent a legal notice to the firm seeking refund of her amount and then approached the ncdrc last year the firm had submitted before the commission that the project got delayed due to an october 8 2010 notification of the state government uk arc