(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner present who has drawn our attention to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between respondent No. 1/complainant and Ashish Automobiles (A division of Somani Swiss Ind. Ltd.) -respondent No. 2, order of the District Forum dated 3.1.2000, limits of authority as per Clause 5 of dealership agreement of the petitioner with the dealer as also the subsequent judgment of the State Commission in similar matters in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Achutya Nand Singh and Ors., FA Nos. 286, 296, 299 301, 311 and 328 of 2007. After drawing out attention to the said documents, it was submitted by him that once the delivery of the vehicle in question had been given to the complainant, no further liability could be fastened on the petitioner specially in view of the fact that MOU was entered into between respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after the judgment of the District Forum. He also placed before us judgment of the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Anr., II (1994) CPJ 21 (SC), which has material bearing on the issue involved in the revision upon which reliance was placed by the State Commission in the subsequent judgment in similar matters in the Appeals referred to above.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 had sent counter affidavit which was received on 16.7.2009 and subsequent thereto, he had sent an application stating that he is not in a position to attend the hearing of the Commission and that he has already submitted his counter affidavit in July which may be considered. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated by him that he had entered into MOU treating the dealer as Maruti Udyog Ltd.'s representative and he had signed the said MOU in which apart from delivery of vehicle, interest @ 18% was to be paid to him. He has further stated that Maruti Udyog Ltd. delivered the vehicle and did not pay 18% interest as agreed earlier in the MOU. The MOU never absolved Maruti Udyog Ltd. from the responsibilities; Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the dealer are one unit and since the dealer has failed to pay 18% interest and compensation Maruti Udyog Ltd. is liable for the same.
(3.) FIRST of all, we would like to point out that there is nothing in the MOU entered into between the complainant and respondent No. 1 to suggest that the said MOU was entered into by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. The said MOU was entered into after the judgment of the District Forum and in the said MOU, it was stated that the settlement is full and final and the customer shall not raise any other claim in any Court, Tribunal and Forum, etc. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant on 14.6.2000 that is to say the date on which MOU was entered into between respondent Nos.1 and 2.