Rounding off amounts in commercial transactions is permissible under industry standards and does not amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

M/s Mc Donald Family Restaurant (Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd.), hereinafter referred to as the Revisionist, have filed these Revision Petitions under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act, against the separate Orders dated 26.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal Nos. 689, 692, 1198, 1199, 1200 and 1201 of 2015, whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Appeals filed by the Revisionist and have upheld the Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Second, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

Since the facts and question of law involved in all these Revision Petitions are similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 1246 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Complaint No. 1426 of 2012 filed before the District Forum.

Brief facts of the case as enumerated in the Complaint are that the Complainant bought four Ice-cream Cones from the Mc Donald’s Family Restaurant, Revisionist vide Bill/Invoice No. 009401200153597.As per the Bill/Invoice the amount payable was ₹85.50ps (Ice-cream cone ₹75/- and VAT ₹10.50), but the Revisionist rounded off the figure by adding ₹0.50 in the Bill and charged ₹86/-, i.e., ₹0.50ps. in excess of the amount of the Bill/Invoice from the Complainant.It is stated by the Complainant when she demanded fifty paisa which was charged in excess of the Bill amount from her, the Revisionist refused to refund the amount of fifty paisa by saying that same has been rounded off and they used to take payment from each of the customer in same manner by rounding off the figure.When she asked for Complaint book for lodging complaint, they refused to provide the same.They also made a fun of the Complainant and misbehaved with her.Alleging deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Revisionist, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint being Complaint No. 1426 / 2012 before the District Forum seeking following reliefs:-

The excess amount of fifty paise recovered by Opposite Party No.1 from the Complainant on 04.08.2012 may be ordered to be refunded to the Complainant with interest from the Opposite Parties; The Complainant may be awarded the compensation of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousands) for the physical and mental agony suffered by the Complainant due to erroneous and improper business custom of Opposite Party No.1 and the amount of ₹25,000/- (twenty-fivethousand) as penalty, totalling to ₹75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousands) may be ordered to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.

The bills of the last two years may be summoned from Opposite Party No.1 and the maximum penalty may be imposed for recovering excess amount in the name of rounding off the bills in proportionate to the improper benefit earned by Opposite Party No.1 The Complainant may be awarded the cost the complaint and the Advocate’s fee of ₹6,500/- (Rupees six thousand five hundred) to be paid Opposite Parties.”

The Revisionist contested the Complaint before the District Forum.They submitted that at present in the market coin of ₹0.50 is not easily available. They also submitted that as per the Circular No. DBOD Dir. BC. 6/13.03.00/2006-07 dated July 1, 2006, issued by Reserve Bank of India in monetary transaction the amount would be rounded off to the nearest Rupee.₹0.50ps. and above shall be rounded off to the next higher Rupee and fraction of less than ₹0.50 ps. shall be ignored.Similar circulars have also been issued by the Central Excise Department as well as Sales Tax Department etc.Therefore, they were legally entitled to round off the Rupee to the next higher Rupee if in the Bill 0.50 paisa or more was shown as payable, and they have no