The document contains multiple choice and fill in the blank questions related to business laws and the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. It also includes a case study about a man, Mr. Kailash, who purchased an autorickshaw that developed defects within 15 days. He contacted the dealer but they did not address the issues. The questions ask about whether Mr. Kailash is a consumer, the appropriate dispute redressal forum, if there was deficiency in service, and how to decide the case.

2. 100

3. 150

5. 2 Lakhs

6. 3 Lakhs

8. Registered office

9. Place at books of accounts are kept

11. Guarantee amount

12. Unlimited liability

14. Guarantee amount

15. Unlimited liability

17. Freely transferable

18. Prohibited

20. Unpaid value of shares

21. Unlimited

23. Public Co.

24. Government Co.

26. Private Company

27. Public Company

28. None of these

30. Mr. Kailash, being an unemployed youth holding a Route Permit of Autorickshaw, purchased one Diesel Vikram (3-wheeler Model and colour 410 D/Auto/Yellow & Black) from the dealer, M/s Manik Motors as per Invoice for Rs. 1,01,000/- (payment by cash of Rs. 21,000/- and by DD of Rs. 80,000/- taken as loan from the Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank, Aliporeduar). But within 15 days from the date of purchase, the engine plate of the Autorickshaw broke down, lube oil leaked with excess consumption and the engine got heated and the problem over starting of the vehicle developed. The Complainant at once informed the dealer over telephone of such problems arising in the vehicle but the dealer did not take any step. The Complainant suffered financial loss and various hazards as a result. Hence, he brought his complaint before the Consumer Forum praying for an order for refund of consideration money with interest and compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,09,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/-.

31. The first contention of the dealer is that under the terms of the Warranty that was valid for 6 months, if the purchaser does not avail himself of the benefit of free service once every month during this period of six months, then he will be deprived of getting any benefit of this warranty and, therefore, the contention of the Complainant that the vehicle developed defects during the period of warranty is of no avail.

32. Since, the distance between the place of the Complainant and the place where the Service Centre of the dealer was situated was extremely long being 360 km, it was not possible for the Complainant to come to such a distant place every month with his defective vehicle for obvious reasons, as such an exercise would involve not only excessive cost but also a good number of hazards of different kinds, for example, either it would have to be carried in a truck on payment of substantial amount of hiring charges or it would have to be carried along such a route manually by means of pulling and pushing over the road. Further, the dealer gave an assurance to the Complainant at the time of the purchase of the vehicle that a service centre would be set up at Aliporeduar to enable the purchasers like the Complainant to have servicing of their vehicles done easily and conveniently, but the dealer did not care to keep its words and the Complainant thereby had rightly and justifiably taken the plea that on the basis of such assurance being given by the dealer, he purchased the Autorickshaw and the assurance having not been fulfilled, it is the dealer who is at fault and not the Complainant for such violation of the term of warranty.

33. Discuss whether Mr. Kailash is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

34. Advice Mr. Kailash on the ‘Dispute Redressal Forum’ that should be approached by him.

35. Discuss if there is a deficiency in service on part of the dealer as per the CPA, 1986

36. Decide the case based on your knowledge of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

37. 5+5+10+10=30