Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/155/2016

Kogta Financial India Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kishan Lal Bairwa & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Murad Baig

04 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 155 /2016

 

Kogta Financial India Ltd., regd.office Kogta House,Azad Mohalla,Vijainagar,Distt.Ajmer & ors.

Vs.

Kishanlal Bairwa r/o Adarsh Nagar Ward no. 4, Kuti Bandikui, Tehsil Baswa Distt. Dausa & ors.

 

Date of Order 4.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr,K.K.Bagri- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Deepak Saraogi counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Dausa dated 8.1.2016.

 

The contention of the appellants is that they were not having any privity of contract with the respondent consumer. The complainant is not his consumer. He has not undertaken the liability in the agreement as regard to the loan account of the complainant. Hence, they should have been exonerated from the liability.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment .

 

Before the court below the contention of the appellant was that they have not undertaken the liability of the impugned loan agreement but it has been specifically held by the court below that appellants have undertaken all assets and liabilities of G.M.A.C. Financial Services since March 2010 and thereafter cheques deposited by the consumer were also get encashed on 13.4.2012 and when the appellants have undertaken all liability and assets of respondent no.2, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that they are not liable towards the complainant.

 

3

 

During argument it has also been brought to the notice of this court that as regard to the assets and liability of respondent no.2 a memorandum was prepared but the agreement has not been submitted before the court below which clearly gives presumption that it was against the appellants and purposely with held by the appellants. Hence, in view of the above that the appellants have undertaken the assets and liabilities of respondent no.2, they are liable towards the complainant and the court below has rightly held so. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm