K.R.UDAYABHANU, J. - (1.)Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.273/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appeal is filed primarily with respect to the order in I.A.375/09 filed by the opposite party to delete the opposite parties from the party array. It is also contended that I.A.374/09 filed disputing the maintainability of the complaint has not been disposed of although the same was taken for orders.
(2.)The complaint is with respect to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3, the Managing Director of the dealer in person, the Director (Marketing and Sales) of BMW India Private Limited in his name and the dealer represented by the 1st opposite party. It is the contention that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party as the BMW X5 series car booked was not delivered and another model BMW 7 series which according to the complainant was an outdated model was delivered. But the required papers for registration were handed over only after about 3 months thereby incapacitating the complainants to use the vehicle. He had claimed a sum of Rs.53.09 lakhs as compensation.
(3.)It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants/opposite herein that I.A.374/09 filed challenging the maintainability of the complaint and I.A.375/09 filed seeking deletion of the opposite parties 1 and 2 from the party array was taken for orders and only in I.A.375/09 the order has been passed. According to the counsel although the matter was taken for orders on 19.8.2009 and posted for orders on 10.9.2009, the order in I.A.375/09 was passed only on 30.3.2010. According to him the opposite parties were also not aware of the order passed in the matter. It is contended that the case is not maintainable as the matter also involved disputes as to another agreement as per which the complainant had agreed to participate in the business Tata Passenger Car Dealership at Calicut and Cochin operated by the 1st opposite party. Subsequently, he felt back on his premises covenanted under the business agreement drawn up. As the gesture of good will and taking all prospective business alliance, a 730 Id BMW car was sold to the complainant at heavily discounted rate. The full payment has not been made. It is also mentioned that a number of cases are pending in between the parties, both Civil and Criminal. It is also contended relying on section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that the Forum has no jurisdiction as the price of the disputed car is 90.lakh and also on the ground that the 2nd opposite party/manufacturer has no office within the jurisdiction of the Forum and as per section 11 (2) the leave of the Forum ought to have been taken before initiating proceedings against the opposite party who do not reside etc within the jurisdiction of the Forum.