The two-member bench- RK Anand and M Mahajan - said "the charge of territorial restriction as having been apparently established, the respondents particularly Bajaj Auto Ltd (BAL), are directed to cease the aforesaid practice if continued at present and desist from repeating the same in future."

"Absence of transparency in the clause can lead to manipulation of clause at the parties' end," the bench said, adding "we find that the preamble read with the appointment letter (from Bajaj Auto Ltd to its dealer) speaks of the dealership at `Rajkot'.

"It can refer to a place from where the activities are carried on or the territory to which it confines to," it said.

Giving `cease and desist order' to Bajaj on the charge of fixation of sales target also, the bench said "the respondent has not been able to establish gateway as laid down in the Act."

A complaint filed by director general of investigation & registration (DGIR) which alleged BAL and Automotive Manufacturers Ltd of practising restrictive trade said the agreement between the two (the dealer and respondent) contained certain clauses which were restrictive in nature.

The complaint said "the clauses relate to restrictions of territory in which the dealer is to operate, the tie-up agreement by fixing targets and maintaining the resale price."

It was contended that the respondents were to be directed to amend the impugned agreement and the cost be also awarded to the applicant.

MRTPC, however, disposed of the DGIR's complaint on the charge of fixing of price by stating "as per this clause (in the agreement) the vehicles already in stock as on Oct 1, 1994 are to be sold at the old prices. This is clearly beneficial to the consumer or consumers at large and is in public interest.'

The bench observed that it referred to fair dealing on part of the respondent and prevented any unjustified cost being imposed on the consumer and said "in the circumstances we are of the considered view that the charges as levelled does not fall under the Act.'

Replying to the allegations, the respondent said the dealers' appointment at Rajkot neither prescribed any territory nor does it restrain it from selling goods outside Rajkot. "In the absence of any such restraint, the statement in the preamble and the appointment letter cannot be construed to mean an agreement allocating area or market for disposal of goods," the respondent replied.

(PTI)