PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against OP.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant Nos. 1 & 2 are Private Limited Companies and Complainant Nos. 3 & 4 are firms established under  Äditya Auto Group” which is family business of family members of Mr. R. Ponnusamy. Complainant group started banking with OP from April, 2006 and OP was providing CC limit, bank guarantee limit and term loan.  Complainant requested OP to enhance various limits which was not acceded by OP; so, complainant suffered huge financial loss.  Complainants approached another Nationalized Bank, Syndicate Bank, who  cleared all liability of OP on 31.12.2013 after making entire payment through RTGS and further sanctioned bank guarantee limits of Rs. 3.30 crores to M/s. Raja Krishna Aditya Auto Store Pvt. Ltd.  It was further alleged that despite making payment, OP withheld title deed and other related documents pledged with them.  OP also deducted Rs.3,62,081/- towards renewal charges arbitrarily and deducted Rs.32,41,750/- as take over charges without any intimation.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for refund of Rs.82,02,210/- as per paragraph 31 of the complaint and Rs.17,37,459/- towards interest, Rs. 25 lakhs as loss of goodwill, Rs. 15 lakhs towards mental agony, Rs. 25 lakhs towards loss of income and Rs. 3 lakhs towards cost of litigation.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the complainant for admission purposes.

4.      Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that as all Companies and firms are family business of Mr. R. Ponnusamy dealing with the OP and as OP has committed deficiency in not enhancing limits and charging arbitrarily renewal charges, taking over charges, etc. complaint is maintainable.

5.      Admittedly, two Private Limited Companies and two firms have filed this single complaint which cannot be permitted.  Complainant No. 1 & 2 are separate legal entities, Complainant No. 3 & 4 are Partnership firms and merely because they are of same family group having business with OP, they cannot be permitted to file single complaint and amount claimed by all of them cannot be clubbed for claiming pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

6.      Had complainants filed complaints separately, they could have claimed refund of renewal charges, takeover charges pertaining to that unit and along with claimed compensation, complaint would not have been entertainable by this Commission, as it must have been for amount less than one crore.  Under the garb of Section 12 (1) ( c) or Section 13 (6) of Consumer Protection Act which are primarily meant for common services, e.g., facility of lift, deficiency in maintaining common areas or common facilities, complaints regarding goods are not maintainable before this Commission.

7.      Perusal of complaint reveals that it does not contain name of all the complainants and only memo of parties contains name of four complainants and two OPs whereas in complaints title name of all the parties should have been mentioned.  Not only this, perusal of memo of parties reveals that Complainant No. 3 & 4 are, prima facie, firms, but these firms have not filed complaints through a partner and complaint on behalf of firm can be filed only through partner.  Merely by mentioning name of partner in paragraph 4 & 5 of the complaint, it cannot be held that Complainant No. 3 & 4 have filed their complaints through partner and in such circumstances, complaints filed by the Complainant No. 3 & 4 are not maintainable.

8.      As there is misjoinder of parties, complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

9.      Consequently, complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed with liberty to the complainants to file their complaints before appropriate forum, if so advised.