Marina Torchia of PGM, the woman who ``received'' the car, is crying foul. ``After getting mileage and media publicity from the event, Hyundai did not give us the car. What came instead was an MoU with too many strings. That too more than two months after the handing over of the keys to us,'' she claims .

B V R Subbu, director, marketing and sales, Hyundai Motor India, when contacted in Mumbai on telephone, refused to comment on the matter.Documents with The Financial Express show that both parties exchanged letters on the modalities of the handing over of the car even after it was registered on July 26 in the name of Panchavati.

PGM, a Delhi-based, non-profit trust, is an associate of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in its global campaign for sustainable consumption among the youth. Hyundai says that the car donated to PGM initially was rejected by the NGO as it wanted a change of colour from silver to white. PGM alleges that after the registration of the car at the State Transport Authority office, the vehicle was taken back by Hyundai employees ``to their showroom... under the pretext of checking out some mechanical systems''.

The Hyundai stand is that the handing over of the car to PGM was subject to the signing of the MoU, and since the NGO did not sign the MoU, the question of delivering the car did not arise.

The matter did not end here. Panchavati filed a police complaint against Hyundai on January 15 under IPC Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420. This followed a legal notice sent to the company on August 17, 1999.

Responding to the notice, Surana and Surana, Chennai-based attorneys for Hyundai, have strongly refuted the charge that Hyundai was trying to give the NGO restricted and incomplete rights to the car when it had already become the owner. ``The respondent company has never intended to give restricted and incomplete rights to the complainants. The respondent company only required the complainant to sign the MoU before delivery of the car,'' states the response from Surana and Surana.

According to Surana and Surana, `The respondent company is committed to the offer and is willing to deliver the car on execution of the MoU by the complainant, containing the understanding on which the car has been agreed to be donated to the complainant.''

The copy of the unsigned MoU, also with The Financial Express, lists Hyundai's representation, obligations of Panchavati, an indemnification clause besides general clauses.

But this leaves a number of questions unanswered. Why was the MoU, which has become the bone of contention between Hyundai and Panchavati, not drafted and signed before the widely reported ``donation'' of the car? Also, how seriously are big businesses committed to community causes? And shouldn't NGOs be accountable to their donors?