ORDER
Per SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

Complainants  booked two apartments in the residential flat project of
the OP at  “ Kessal I Valley, I- Homes” at plot no. 9 , Tech Zone,
Greater Noida,   in July 2009.  Complainants paid  Rs   1,20,000/-
each to the OP as an initial payment for booking.  It is alleged by
the complainants that the OP1 sent  a letter to him thereby requesting
 to make a further payment of Rs. 1,56,000/-  each in favour of I-
Homes interior. As per the instructions of OP1 , the complainants make
the payment of Rs. 1,56,000/- each for both the flats to I-Home
interiors by way of DD bearing No. 130565 and 130566 dt. 2/03/2010 and
the same was accepted by OP 4 vide  credit notes dt.  05-03-2010.  It
is further alleged by the complainant that when the complainants
visited the office of the OP to enquire about the progress of the
construction and further payment if any to be made, then the official
of OP1 acknowleged the initial booking payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- each
and flatly refused to the acknowledge of the payment of Rs. 1,56,000/-
each made by the complainants in favour of OP4 i.e.  I Homes interior
as instratucted by OP1.  It is further alleged by tbhe complainants
that, he wrote a letter dated 22-9-2011 and 23-09-2011 timely asking
the OP1 to acknowledge  and issue proper receipt of the payment of Rs.
1,57,000/- each, but the OP flatly refused to acknowledge  the same.
The complainants, therefore, approached this forum for the redressal
of his grievance.
The complaint has been contested by the Ops.  Ops have filed written
statement wherein they have denied any deficiency on their part.  It
would be of benefit to reproduce Para (2) of the Brief facts of the
written statement filed by OP1 to OP3.  It reads as under:-
II. it is submitted that advertisement of the project were published
in the leading daily newspapers and in other print media by Respondent
No. 1 and pursuant to those, the complainant after acquainting with
the terms and conditions of the aforesaid project they shown their
interest in hooking of residential units in the aforesaid Project
through Respondent No. 4-6 who were then working as project consultant
only for initial booking/ transfer and not for collection of
subsequent amounts as per the scheme or for any other purpose in the
name of interior decoration.
OP4 to 6 have also filed a separate written statement.  They have
denied any deficiency in the service on their part  It would be of
benefit to reproduce para 4 of their reply which reads as under:-
4.That the contents of para no. 5 & 6 wherein the respondents claims
that they were demanded Rs. 1, 56,000/- each by the O.Ps, relates only
to the OP. no 1, 2 ,3 as they were the developers and OP no. 4, 5, 6
had no knowledge of the same, further the respondents claims that they
made payment to I — Homes and the credit note issued by I -Homes, to
this it has already been made clear that OP. no. 4, 5 , 6 have no
relation with I- Homes. Therefore the claims against


 OP. 4, 5, 6 are wrong and, hence denied.

Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perusused the record.
The learned counsel for the OP has contended that the complainants has
booked the alleged residential unit with OP1 through OP4 to OP6 who
were then working as a project consultant for initial booking and not
for the collection of the subsequent amount as per scheme in the name
of interior decotrators. It is further contended by the counsel for
OP1 that as OP4 to OP6 did not perform as per the agreed terms their
relationship came to an end by a flux of time as per the agreement
executed between them.   The learned counsel has contended that the
amounts received by OP4 to OP6 were not received by OP1 and ,
therefore, the complainants cannot raise a issue about this against
OP1.   We , however, are not convinced with the contention of the
counsel for OP1   .  On the one hand OP1 has admitted that respondents
nos 4 to 6 are its agents  and on the other hand they have denied that
their relationship with it.    The counsel for OP1 to OP3 has
contended that OP4 to oP6 are no more their agents.  But has failed to
place on record any document which shows that the agency in favour of
OP4 to OP6 was ever terminated.     Ops 1 to 3 have also failed to
place on record any notice / letter which they might have issued to
the complainant to inform him about the termination of the agency in
favour of OP4 to OP6.    On the contrary, the complainant has placed
on record a copy of the letter dated 9.12.2009 through which OP1 had
directed the complainant to make payment of a sum of Rs 1,56,000/-
each through cheque / D.D. in favour of I-Homes interiors  (Annexure
C) . We have, therefore,of the considered opinion that OP nos 4 to 6
continued to be the agents of OP 4 to 3 and have collected money on
behalf of OP1 as is clear from the letter dated 09.12.2009 as earlier
pointed out by us.
The principal is bound by the acts of its agents. Ops 1 to 3 ,
therefore, could not have denied receipt of the amount of Rs
1,57,000/- from the complainant.  Their denial on this behalf is an
act of deficiency towards the complainants.  We, therefore, direct OP1
to OP3 as under:
1. Acknowledge the receipt of Rs. 1,56,000/- from the complainants and
adjust the same in his account from the date the amount was  ieved by
OP14 to OP6.
2. Give possession of the flat to the complainant on the receipt of
the balance consideration amount without levying any charges on the
amount of Rs. 1,56,000/- recived by OP4 to OP6 on its behalf.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for pain and agony
suffered by him.
4. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The OPs shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OPs fail to comply
with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution
of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File
be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................