ORDER
Per NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER


The complainant booked a flat / unit type Gold Residential Apartment,
area 360 Sq. Ft. in the residential flats project “ Kessal I Valley,
I- Homes” at plot no. 9 , Tech Zone, Greater Noida, UP vide booking
No. “K1V/IH/1200” dt. 12.10.2009 for a total consideration of Rs.
11,27,000/-  with the OP.  It is alleged by the complainant that as
per the instruction of the OP1, he made the following payments to it
from time to time:-
1. Rs 25,000/- vide receipt no. IH/R/0601814 dt. 21.10.2009.
2. Rs 25,350/- vide cheque No. 631423 dt. 15.10.2009.
3. Rs.  1,56,000/- vide cheque no. 631422 dt. 7.10.2009 in favour of OP2.
4. Rs. 1,20,900/- vide cheque No. 322371 dt. 22/12/2009.
5. Rs 1,20,900/- vide cheque no. 631428 dt. 06/03/2010.

All the above payments were duly received by the Ops and they have
issued the receipts in this regard to the complainant.
It is alleged by the complainant that as per the terms and conditions
of MOU dt. 12-04-2010 OP1 had promised that the construction of the
aforesaid flat will be completed on or before Dec, 2011. It is further
alleged by the  complainant that he came to know from the reliable
sources that the OP despite of recieving  the substantial amounts from
the complainant have not taken any steps for developing and
constructing the aforesaid residential flat.  The complainant has
alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this
complaint.
The Op has contested the complaint.  A written statement has been
filed by the Ops in which they have denied any deficiency in service
on their part. However, OP1 at the initial stage  offered to refund a
sum of Rs 2,67,150/- to the complainant  but denied the receipt of Rs.
1,56,000/- paid to OP2 by the complainant allegedly instruction of
OP1.
Both the parties have placed on record their evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
It  may be pointed out that during the trial of this complaint, OP1
had made payment of a sum of Rs. 2,67,150/- to the complainant on
20-10-2014.  The counsel for Op1 has contended that OP2 should be held
liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- as the same
was  deposited by the complainant in the name of “I home interiors”
and it had issued the credit note of the same  to the complainant.  It
is further contended by the counsel for the OP1 that OP2 is no more
associated as an agent of OP1, even though , it was earlier associated
as an agent only for booking of units in said project; collection of
amount by OP2 was restricted only to initial booking or transfer.
We, however, are not in agreement with the contention of the counsel
for OP1. On the one  hand, the counsel for OP1 admitted OP2 as their
agent and on the other hand denied any credit note issued by it.  It
is stated by the counsel for OP1 that OP2 is no more their agent but
had failed to place on record any  document which shows  that their
agency was  terminated.  OP1 has never intimated to the complainant
that OP2 is no more their agent. On the  contrary, it had directed the
complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- with OP2,  the credit
note of which was given by OP2 to the complainant i.e. Annexure C-2.
Hence, OP1 is liable for the act of OP2.
   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 in this behalf is an
act of deficiency towards the complainant.
The counsel for the complainant had pointed out that as per the MOU
dt. 12.04.2010 , the OP had to handover the possession of the alleged
flat to the complainant on / before Dec 2011 but the OP had failed to
do so and as such it was liable for deficiency in services towards
complainant.   There is nothing on record from the side of the   OP1
to rebut this fact. Infact OP, itself has admitted in its reply that
the work had got delayed and it was  making reasonable efforts to
ensure the completiton of the project at the earliest.

We, therefore,  hold OP1 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it
as under:-
1. To refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,56,000/- along with an
interest of 12 % p.a. from the date of deposit     till payment.
2. Pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the sum of Rs. 2,67,150/- from the date
of deposit till 20-10-2014.
3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation
for mental agony and pain suffered by him.
4. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a cost of litigation.
            The OP1 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 OP1
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.....................