QUESTIONNAIRE FOR AKG CARS

1. Is it true that the respondent company through the Letter of Intent dated
12.07.2013 (Annexure C-19 of the Claimant’s Rejoinder”) instructed the
Claimant Company to erect the Permanent Dealership Facility on it’s own
expenses as per Nissan Standards and design and as per the Designing
Consultant advised by them for sales and service of their Nissan Brand
Passenger Cars for Maharashtra West/ Nagpur Region?

2. Is it true that, the Claimant Company after investing money constructed the
said Permanent Dealership Facility as per Letter of Intent & Nissan Standars
vide instruction of the respondent Company?

3. Is it true that, after the investment on Permanent Dealership Facility was

already made by the Claimant Company, the respondent company without
taking consent of the Claimant Company unilaterally changed the terms and
formulated the “Dealership Agreement” and got it signed by Claimant
Company?

4. Is it true that, the “Dealership Agreement; Annexure C-1 of Claim” was not
signed together by both the parties but firstly the signatures were obtained
from the Claimant-Dealer and thereafter it was collected by the officials of the
respondent Company for signatures of the authorised signatory of the
respondent company and was signed months later ?

5. Is it true that, when the dealership was offered to the Claimant, the old Nissan
Dealership was already shut down almost since 15-18 months back and the
Nissan through Hoover Automotive India requested the claimant to serve the
existing customers so that the Brand Value of Nissan may be retained and
maintained and the Claimant has successfully served the old customers and
also put huge efforts to uplift the Brand Image of Nissan, these services have
been well recognized by the NMIPL and the Claimant was awarded CSI Rank
No.2 by JD Power ?

6. Is it true that, the Passenger Car selling & Servicing is an specialized business
and it requires technical skills therefore the Car Makers without any exception
provide specialized training to the dealers staff those handle the marketing &
maintenance of their precious Cars and almost all of them require and insist
 on permanent/ longer tie-ups of around 15-20 years at least because this
business requires permanent structures and serious investments?

7. Is it true that, the Claimant constructed the Showroom & Workshop as per the
Nissan Standards, designs and diagrams and had to invest a sum of around
Rs.10.5 Crores on land and building for the permanent Nissan Dealership
Facility which was supposed to be running smoothly for at least next 15
years?

8. Is it true that the permanent facility/ Showroom & Workshop as per the
Nissan Standards, designs and diagrams was raised by the Claimant
exclusively for the sales and service of Nissan & Datsun Brand cars of
NMIPL.

9. Is it true that, after investing huge amount of money, the claimant during the
last almost 3 years has been actively carrying out the dealership of respondent
Company/ NMIPL and was selling/ servicing the Nissan/ Datsun Cars as per
the NMIPL guidance & directions with no hassles or restriction on cash flow
and investment in business?

10. Is it true that, time and again the NMIPL promised launch of new models of
vehicle but failed in doing so?

11. Is it true that, the overall sales of Nissan/ Datsun vehicles pan India were low
therefore the permanent dealership facility/ infrastructure raised by Claimant
was not being utilized to its actual potential?

12. Is it true that, all India market share of NMIPL remain around 2% or lower in
last 4 years?

13. Is it true that, as because the market share of the Nissan/ Datsun fell down for
the reasons attributable to NMIPL management, the NMIPL changed its
Managing Directors quite frequently?

14. Can you please inform the honourable Tribunal as to how many Managing
Directors have been changed in the NMIPL in between year 2013 and 2018?

15. Is it true that, the NMIPL has seen 4 outgoing Managing Directors (Mr. Ajay
Raghuvanshi, Mr. Arun Malhotra, Mr. Jerome Saigot & now Mr. Thomas
Kuehl) in last 4-5 years?
16. Can you please inform the honourable Tribunal as to how many new Models
of Nissan Cars were launched between year 2015 – 2018?

17. Is it true that, as because the market share of the Nissan/ Datsun fell down for
the reasons attributable to NMIPL management, the NMIPL has started
discontinuing the existing dealerships those had humongous infrastructure
built on the basis of Nissan Standards and started appointing new dealers with
very small infrastructures?

18. Can you please inform the honourable Tribunal as to why the respondent
company did not discuss and tried to compensate the Claimant/ Dealers after
their discontinuation of the dealerships for the loss on account of humongous
infrastructure raised on the basis of Nissan Standard and Diagrams?

19. Can you please inform the honourable Tribunal as to why while discontinuing
the dealership respondent Company did not took any steps to clear the
outstanding dues/ claims, to take back the spares and vehicle stock and to
mitigate the other losses?

20. Is it true that all the investments made by the dealers/ claimant in yours
permanent dealership facility were based on the norms settled by the
respondent Company/ NMIPL?

21. Is it true that after making the Claimant to put huge amount of investments on
Nissan Permanent Dealership facility the NMIPL was under an implied
promise to indemnify the Claimant from all losses on account of investments
on the Permanent Facility/ Infrastructure?

22. Is it true that the Dealer Management System (DMS) web facility of the
respondent company has all the details of vehicle & spares sales, it’s stock &
inventory at all times?

23. Is it true that the Dealer Management System web facility of the respondent
company is under complete control of the respondent company?

24. Is it true the ATL (Above the line), BTL (Below the line) and wholesale
Claim schemes of the Company are promotional schemes based on
advertisements cost of which is shared by the respondent company?
25. Have you all the details of the ATL/ BTL and wholesale Claim raised by the
Claimant during the continuance of the dealership?

26. Can you please inform the honourable Tribunal about the functions of yours
Claims, Dealer Development and Accounts department?

27. Who is the head of Claims, Dealer Development and Accounts department of
the respondent company?

28. Have you verified the facts invoices, inventory etc regarding the Claim raised
by the Claimant from yours Claims, Dealer Development and Accounts
department and the Dealer Management System (DMS) web facility.

29. I put to you that, the Claimant had tried hard to mitigate the losses by putting
the showroom & workshop on rent but as the structures are so huge being
erected as per Nissan Standards, the claimant is unable to find any Tenant/
Purchaser for the premises and therefore is suffering huge losses?

30. I put to you that, the discontinuance of the dealership agreement is neither in
any manner attributable to the claimant nor falls within the meaning of force-
majure situation?

31. I put to you that, the respondent company has discontinued the dealership
agreement neither because of the incapacity nor because of any fault on the
part of Claimant and has put no efforts to compensate the Claimant or to Settle
the dispute by mutual negotiations or understanding?

32. Is it true that the respondent company has discontinued the Claimant’s
dealership at it’s own will without the consent of the Claimant but the
respondent company has not taken back the Spares Parts Stock lying with
Claimant which is valued at Rs.72,83,214/- as per Annexure C-2 of the
Claim?

33. Is it true that, the respondent company has not paid the Claimant, the
outstanding amount of money on account of the consumer offers/ dealer’s
incentive monthly scheme payouts, those are already approved by the NMIPL
which comes to Rs.36,00,000/- as per Annexure C-3?
34. Is it true that during the continuance of the dealership, the respondent
Company was the Principal Seller of the Nissan & Datsun vehicles through
the Claimant and the Claimant was acting as it’s sales & service agent?

35. Is it true that the respondent company has not compensated the Claimant
towards Goods & Sales Tax (GST) paid on the old vehicle those were sold by
the Claimant after imposition of GST that comes to Rs.4,48,304/- ass per
Annexure C-4?

36. Is it true that the respondent company has caused the Claimant to raise the
permanent dealership facility/ Showroom & Workshop building etc as per
Nissan Standards that has turned useless after discontinuance of the
dealership?

37. I put to you that, the respondent company is under obligation to compensate
the Claimant for the losses on account of the cost of Building/ permanent
dealership facility which is Rs.92,33,020/- as per Annexure C-5?

38. I put to you that, the respondent company has discontinued the Claimant’s
dealership at their own will without the consent of the Claimant whereas, they
caused the Claimant to arrange the computer peripherals etc for the Nissan/
Datsun Showroom & Workshop as per their Standards which is now useless
for the Claimant therefore they have to compensate the Claimant for the losses
on that account which is Rs.3,79,695/- as per Annexure C-6?

39. I put to you that, the respondent company has caused the Claimant to arrange
the electrical installations for the Nissan/ Datsun Showroom & Workshop as
per their Standards which is now useless for the Claimant therefore they have
to compensate the Claimant for the losses on that account which is
Rs.10,61,357/- as per Annexure C-7?

40. I put to you that, the respondent company has made the Claimant to invest on
Nissan Signage for the Nissan/ Datsun publicity as per their Standards which
is now useless for the Claimant therefore they have to compensate the
Claimant for the losses on that account which is Rs.5,08,315/- as per
Annexure C-8?

41. I put to you that, the respondent company has made the Claimant to invest on
Tools & Equipments for the Nissan/ Datsun Showroom & Workshop as per
 their Standards which is now useless for the Claimant therefore they have to
compensate the Claimant for the losses on that account which is
Rs.25,74,017/- as per Annexure C-9?

42. I put to you that, the respondent company has made the Claimant to invest on
Furniture & Fixtures for the Nissan/ Datsun Showroom & Workshop as per
their Standards which is now useless for the Claimant therefore they have to
compensate the Claimant for the losses on that account which is Rs.9,17,233/-
as per Annexure C-10?

43. I put to you that, the NMIPL has also made the Claimant to invest on the Test
Drive Vehicles those were later required to be sold on reduced/ depreciated
price but the NMIPL has not compensated the difference of the Sale Value till
date as such NMIPL should compensate Claimant for the losses on that
account which is Rs.16,11,534/- as per Annexure C-11?

44. I put to you that, the respondent company has also made the Claimant to
invest on the Training & Development of the Staff appointed for selling and
servicing of the Nissan/ Datusun Vehicles as per Nissan Standards, the said
investment made by Claimant is now worthless for Claimant therefore, the
NMIPL has to compensate the Claimant for the losses on that account which
is Rs.2,50,000/- as per Annexure C-12?

45. I put to you that, the respondent company has also made the Claimant to
invest on the Advertisement & Publicity of the Nissan/ Datsun Products as per
Nissan Standards, the said investment made by Claimant is now worthless for
Claimant therefore, the NMIPL has to compensate the Claimant for the losses
on that account which is Rs.25,00,000/- as per Annexure C-13?

46. I put to you that, the respondent company was planning to discontinue the
Claimant’s dealership since October 2017 therefore, they gave “0” (Zero)
Sales Targets to the Claimant in the month of October 2017, January 2018,
February 2018 & March 2018 which caused losses to the tune of
Rs.8,00,000/- to the Claimant therefore, the NMIPL has to compensate the
same as per Annexure C-14?

47. I put to you that, the respondent company has not taken back the unsold
Vehicles therefore the Claimant had to sell the said vehicles at low prices to
 mitigate the losses therefore, the NMIPL has to compensate the Claimant for
the losses on that account which is Rs.7,50,000/- as per Annexure C-15?

48. That, it is an undisputed fact that the Claimant was handling the Dealership in
efficient manner and was fully compliant with the NMIPL directions. The
Nissan/ Datsun was not going to stop the vehicle production or close down the
business. In such a scenario there was no justified reason with NMIPL to
discontinue the Claimant’s dealership and push them to unreasonable losses.

49. I put to you that, the respondent company has made the Claimant to make
huge investments on the permanent dealership facility/ showroom and
workshop as per standards set by the Nissan Motors/ NMIPL?

50. I put to you that, as per the dealership agreement itself the NMIPL is under
obligation to clear all dues before the dealership agreement is terminated/
discontinued?

51. Is it true that, the respondent Company without clearing the dues payable to
Claimant has sent a letter dated 14.03.2018 for discontinuing the dealership
with effect from 31st March 2018 as per Annexure C-16 that was replied by
Claimant and they also represented for justified solution vide Annexure C-17?

52. Is it true that, the Claimant tried a lot for amicable settlement in the matter but
on being unsuccessful on it’s efforts the Claimant ultimately sent the
Arbitration Notice to the respondent company for resolution of dispute
through Arbitration vide Annexure C-18?

53. I put to you that, the respondent company is under obligation to adequately
compensate the Claimant with an amount of Rs. 3,19,16,690/- (Three Crores
Nineteen Lakh, Sixteen Thousand, Six Hundred, Ninety only) with interest @
18% per anum.

54. I put to you that, the respondent company controls & maintains the online
Dealer Management System (DMS) which is jointly handled and shared by
the respondent Company and their Dealers. In fact, this online Dealer
Management System is by nature an online record of entire Dealer activities
wherein the Dealers maintain the entire transactions including but not limited
to Sale/ Purchase/ Service of Vehicles, Inventory of Stocks including spares,
 tools etc.. and even the transactions pertaining to Retail, ATL & BTL Sales of
the Vehicles?

55. I put to you that, the respondent company has a system of regular physical
verifications at dealership facility also through their officials and all the
transactions can be safely verified through their Systems Manager/ Forensic
Inspection of their DMS (online Dealer Management System)?

56. I put to you that, most of the Claim of Claimant is well established and
verifiable through the data available on the online Dealer Management
System maintained and jointly handled by the respondent Company?

57. I put to you that, the dealership agreements/ renewal agreements was never
signed by the respondents within the stipulated time and dealership in the past
continued even in the absence of the dealership agreement signed by both the
parties and in fact the dealership was often operated based on the mutual
conduct of the parties and was renewed on later occasions?

58. Can you please inform this honourable Tribunal about the dates on which the
dealership agreements between parties was actually signed and delivered by
the respondent company to the Claimant?

59. After making huge investment on the permanent facility as per the Letter of
Intent had the claimant any option but to sign the Dealership Agreement on
terms changed unilaterally by the respondent company?

60. Is it true that, the Claimant has never breached any term of the Dealership
Agreement?

61. Is it true that, the Claimant’s entire Stock & Spares Inventory was always
available to respondent Company on their online Dealer Management System
which is still in their control?

62. I put to you that, the dealership agreements were often signed by the
respondent company after the expiry of period therefore, the time was never
essence of the dealership agreement between the parties?

63. I put to you that, the, there had been occasions of Dealership continuing and
new contract being signed months after the expiry of the last existing contract
between which was effective from February 2016 was signed by respondent
Company in October 2017?
64. I put to you that the Claimant had invested huge money in setting up the
permanent dealership infrastructure, spent on advertising for the brand for
brand building of respondent Company for current and future prospects.
Claimant had invested in man power as per the requirements, Claimant had
invested hug amount of money in training this manpower and in maintaining
the test drive cars and holding huge stocks of vehicles and spare-parts as was
instructed by the company to maintain such things at the dealership?

65. I put to you that all that huge investment on permanent dealership facility as
per the Letter of Intent (Annexure C-19) and Nissan Standards was made by
Claimants for a longer period of time at least 15 years so that the investments
can be fiscally justified?

66. I put to you that before making the Claimant to put huge investments on the
dealership facility the Claimant was never informed by the respondent
Company that the dealership will continue only for 5 years but it was made to
understand that the facility being raised is a permanent facility?

67. I put to you that, the emails from the respondent company would reveal that
after February 2018 it was clear stand of the respondent company that all the
pending claims will be settled after full and final settlement between parties
but the respondent company didn’t do that? Can you assign any reason?

68. Is it true that the Claimant during the continuance of the dealership was
always on the higher side of performers and the Claimant’s Showroom and
workshop were complete with more than the justified requirements?

69. Is it true that, the Manpower at Claimants dealership were trained by the
company itself and they were fully trained on the cost shared by the Claimant
& respondent Company?

70. Is it true that, the respondent company Company has not been able to
maintain the sales and their numbers were constantly decreasing between year
2014-2018.

71. Is it true that, Claims of Claimant are already cross verified by the respondent
Company and are apparent in the Ledgers of the respondent Company?

72. Is it true that respondent Company stopped making payment to Claimant from
February 2018 itself?
73. Whether? the financial accounts of the respondent company has been audited
for years between 2013-2018?

74. Whether? the accounts pertaining to Claimant are included in the accounts of
respondent’s audited books of accounts?

75. Whether? the respondent company has filed the copy of their audited/
unaudited books of accounts pertaining to entries relevant to respondent
Company?

76. I put to you that, respondent company in the past during the continuance of
dealership has shared the expenses on advertisement, promotion, signage in
relation to dealership with the Claimant?

77. I put to you that, the respondent company in the past during the continuance
of dealership has given cash discounts and shared bonus etce on the Vehicle
Sales in relation to dealership with the Claimant?

78. I put to you that, the Claimant invested on Test Drive Vehicles, for long term
of business. The benefit passed on by the company was not enough as the
Claimant still had to suffer losses on the sale of Test Drive Vehicles because
the benefits given by respondent company were too low to cover the actual
cost of the vehicles?

79. I put to you that, with merely a 1 week notice of non-renewal, the Claimant
had to sell off all the vehicles in a hurry?

80. I put to you that in the month of Diwali and Dussehra 2017 which counts as
peak season in automobile Industry too, the Claimant was given “Zero”
targets by the respondent Company? And at the end of May 2017 the
respondent company gave them targets for May & June 2017?

81. Is it true that, the respondent company started selling Cars and spare parts etc
to the Claimant after signing of the Letter of Intent but before signing of the
“Dealership Agreement”?

82. Is it true that there was no time frame for the dealership mentioned in the
Letter of Intent but it required establishment of Permanent Dealership Facility
that was raised with 100% investment from the Claimant?
83. I put to you that the respondent Company’s Market share is among lowest
performers in the Country whereas the Claimant always had been one of the
top performers for the respondent company?

84. I put to you that despite expiry of the 1 st Dealership Agreement and before
signing of the Renewal Agreement the respondent company continued selling
cars, spares and accessories etc to the Claimant?

85. How much net profit per year was being earned by the Claimant during the
continuance of the Dealership agreements?

86. Has your company studied the impact of discontinuation of the Claimant’s
Permanent Dealership Facilty? Have you ascertained their losses?

87. Is it true that the respondent company has complete information of Claimant’s
invoices, stock & spares etc on their DMS and the remaining stocks can be
further verified by joint audit?

88. Did respondent company depute any of its officials to liquidate the remaining
stock of vehicles, spares, accessories and special tool?

89. I put to you that, Claimant has not only telephoned but also sent email dated
26.03.2018 to respondent company’s officials seeking help in liquidation of
remaining stock of vehicles, spares, accessories and special tool?

90. Have you gone through the Claim & Rejoinder of the Claimant and it’s
annexures? Do you have any objection regarding genuineness of any of
document filed by the Claimant as annexures?

91. Did respondent Company on 30th May 2018 instructed the Claimant and other
dealers to show 100% sales in the month of May-June 2018?

92. Is it true that, respondent company also agreed to pay the Claimant the Goods
& Sales tax difference when GST regime was launched by the Government?

93. Is it true that, the Claimant always acted under the instructions of the
respondent company during the continuance of the dealership and Company
paid the Claimant towards ATL/ BTL/ Wholesale promotion schemes those
required advertisement at various levels?

94. Did Claimant invest money and efforts for the respondent’s brand
establishment?
95. Is it true that during the continuance of the dealership the month wise
inventory of stock and spares etc was being regularly exchanged through
emails between yours officials and the Claimants officials?

96. Is it true that, before entering into business relations with Claimant it was
never informed by the respondent Company that the dealership will continue
only for 4-5 years?

97. Is it true that it normally takes at least 4-5 years of continuous decent
operations for establishment of a Brand in the Market?

98. Did your company cross verified the claimants Claim through your company
records, accounts and the Dealer Management System?

99. Is it true that, the Claimant’s claim is verifiable from the email
communications of Nissan controlled/ subscribed email servers and the online
Dealer Management System controlled by respondent Company?

100.Is it true that, the online Dealer Management System controlled by respondent
Company, by nature is a documentation portal which keeps online record of
almost entire Dealer activities that was being jointly handled by the parties
during the continuance of the Dealership?

101.Is it true that, your company do carry at least monthly physical verifications/
audit of dealership through their officials who also keep record of entire
Dealer activities?

102.Is it true that your company holds complete records of the Bulletins, Schemes,
and instructions etc sent to the Dealers?

103.Did respondent Company receive ATL/ BTL/ Wholesale/ GST & Retail
Claims from the Complainant during the continuance of the dealership
through their Claims Department?

104.Is it also true that your company holds complete records of the ATL/ BTL/
Retail/ Wholesale/ GST claims of the claimant?

105.Has your company arranged any meeting with complete records of the
Claimant and your relevant officials for settlement of the Claimant’s Claim?

106.Is your company ready to take back the unsold cars, spares, accessories and
special tools from the Claimant?
107.Is your company ready to pay the ATL/ BTL/ Retail/ Wholesale/ GST claims
of the claimant?

108.Is your company ready to make good the losses incurred by the Claimant on
account of the infrastructure pertaining to the Permanent Dealership Facility
raised by Claimant including fixures, electronic peripherals and furnitures?

109.Can you assign any reason as to why the Claimant’s Dealership was not
renewed by the respondent Company?

110.Whether? For the aforesaid claims Claimant made myriad of requests to your
officials but there was no co-operation from your side.

111.Whether? The ATL/ BTL and Wholesale Claims are Advertisement Claims as
per the Terms under the Bulletins circulated by NMIPL.

112.Whether? The ATL/ BTL and Wholesale Claims are indirectly related with
sales and promotions.

113.Whether? The ATL/ BTL and Wholesale Claims were approved by yours
Claims Department and they have sent there approvals over emails to the
Claimant?

114.Whether? The retail claims are based upon the actual retails sales and can be
verified from Dealer Management System which already has all the invoices.

115.Is it true that, the respondent Company’s was poorly performing during 2013-
2018 and it’s Market Share was between 1.0%-- 1.4% between these years?

116.I put to you that, the Claimant’s comparative Market Share during these years
was more than the double the respondent company’s percentage share?