R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

1. 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).

    

2. 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. 

    

3. 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:-

4. 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;

    

5. 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.

    

6. 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

    

7. 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.”

    

8. 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 not committed any Unfair Trade Practice.

    

9. After hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, the District Forum observed that “the operation of the coin of ₹0.50ps. has not been stopped till now.  The coins of ₹0.50ps. are available in the market.  The Revisionist took a defence that the coins of ₹0.50ps. are not easily available.  When the coin of ₹0.50ps. is in operation, it is the duty/responsibility of the Revisionist to make available the coin of ₹0.50ps. to the customer and not issue the bill for full Rupee.  Any of the provision, procedure of practice is framed by keeping in the interest of general public and where there may be ambiguity, the meaning of that should be taken in the interest of the customer.  If the 50 paisa was not available with the Opposite Party, it was its responsibility that leaving the amount of 50 paisa and amount of ₹85/- be recovered and not to recover amount of ₹86/- by adding the amount of 50 paisa in the Bill. Such practice might have been adopted in so many bills in a day.  This is only the awareness of the Complainant that she had come to the Forum by raising the issue.” and allowed the Complaint vide Order dated 07.05.2015.For ready reference the operative part of the aforesaid Order is reproduced below:-

   “…………..Opposite Party No.1 pay the amount of 50 paise and interest at the rate of 10% per annum on this amount from 04.08.2012 up to payment of the amount within 2 month to the Complainant. Apart from this Opposite Party No.1 pay the amount of ₹50,000/-(fifty thousand Rupees) towards the total compensation and the amount of ₹5,000/- towards cost of the case to the Complainant within two months from today. Out of this the amount of ₹25,000/- will be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and  the Complainant will be entitled to get the amount of ₹25,000/-. In case the above amount of ₹55,000/- is not paid within two months the Complainant will be entitled to get the interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today until payment of the amount by the Opposite Party. The Complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 is dismissed.”

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 07.05.2015 passed by the District Forum, the Revisionist filed Appeal before the State Commission.The State Commission had dismissed the Appeal by observing as under:-

   “The facts are not in dispute that cost of the food product was ₹85.50 and the appellant had charged ₹86/-.  He has taken shelter of circulars of RBI and various other departments but they cannot be cured the misdeed of the appellant as S.2 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly provides that ‘complaint’ means any allegation where trader or the service provider has charged for the goods price in excess of the price agreed between the parties or displayed.  Here in the present case, the agreed price between the parties for the food product was ₹85.50 and he has been charged ₹86/- which clearly shows that it was deficiency on the part of the Appellant and the court below has rightly held so.  Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be rejected.”

1. Aggrieved by Order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the State Commission, the Revisionist has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.

    

2. Mr. Himanshu Bhusan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revisionist submitted that they rounded off the amount to the nearest Rupee in accordance with the Statutory Circulars, Notification and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the wide spread ramifications of the non-recognition of the principle of ‘rounding off’, it would impact the entire Hospitality and Food and Beverage Industry which uniformly follows the principle of rounding off in all financial transactions. There is neither any Deficiency in Service nor any Unfair Trade Practice on their part and Respondent/Complainant is not entitled for any compensation.He further submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission is not sustainable and it should be set aside.

    

3. Per contra, Mr. G.D. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant, .

    

4. We may mention here that during the course of Proceedings, while admitting the case on 16.03.2017 this Commission has passed the following Order:-

   “Admit confined to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Fora below.  To be listed in due course.

   In the meanwhile, the operation of the impugned Orders confined to the direction relating to the award of compensation shall remain stayed.”

    

5. The Revisionist challenged the above Order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15030 / 2017.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP on 03.07.2017 by passing the following Order:-

   “Heard.

   We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned Order. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

   Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

    

6. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Bhusan, learned Counsel for the Revisionist, Mr. G.D. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant and perused the material available on record.

    

7. Even though, this Commission while admitting Revision Petitions had confined to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the Fora below, as the Complainant had not given any basis for claiming the Compensation, we deem it appropriate in order to determine the quantum of compensation, to consider as to whether the Revisionist had committed any Unfair Trade Practice or not, or was there any Deficiency in Service when it rounded off the amount of 50 paisa and above, showing in the Bill to the nearest Rupee.

    

8. We find that it is the practice in the Commercial World, as also in Hospitality Services including Hotel Restaurants that a fraction of a Rupee if it is 50 paisa or above, is rounded off to the nearest Rupee and if it is less than 50 paisa it is ignored, meaning thereby that the person is not liable to pay that amount.

    

9. In this connection, we may refer to the Circular dated 09.04.2007 issued by the Reserve Bank of India with respect to rounding off the transactions to the nearest Rupee.Relevant portion of the said Circular is reproduced below:-

   “Please refer to our circular RPCD.No.RF.BC.68/D.1-90-91 dated January 1, 1991, in terms of which bank were advised that all transactions, including payment of interest on deposits/charging of interest on advances, should be rounded off to the nearest rupee; i.e., fraction of 50 paise and above all shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and fraction of less than 50 paise shall be ignored. Banks were however, advised that cheques issued by clients containing fractions of rupee should not be rejected or dishonoured.”

    

10. Prior to that the Reserve Bank of India had issued a Master Circular on Interest Rates on Rupee Deposits held in Domestic, Ordinary Non-Resident (NRO) and Non-Resident (External) (NRE) Accounts.Clause 19 of the aforesaid Master Circular dealt with Rounding off of transactions is reproduced below:-

    “All transactions, including payment of interest on deposits/charging of interest on advances, should be rounded off to the nearest rupee; i.e., fractions of 50 paise and above shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and fraction of less than 50 paise shall be ignored. Issue prices of cash certificates should also be rounded off in the same manner. Cheques issued by clients containing fractions of a rupee should not be rejected or dishonoured”

     

11. Another Circular was issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 30.03.2007 which provided for rounding off cheques to the nearest Rupee.For ready reference, relevant part of the said Circular is reproduced below:-

    “Please refer to paragraph 19 of our Master Circular DBOD Dir.BC.6/13.03.00/2006-07 dated July 1,2006 on Interest Rates on Deposits’, in terms of which banks were advised that all transactions, including payment of interest on deposits/charging of interest an advances, should be rounded off to the nearest rupee; i.e., fractions of 50 paise and above shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and fraction of less than 50 paise shall be ignored. It was also advised that issue prices of cash certificates should also be rounded off in the same manner. Banks were however, advised that cheques issued by clients containing fractions of a rupee should not be rejected or dishonoured.”

     

12. In the Customer Service Guidelines During the year 2006-2007, issued by the Customer Service Department, Reserve Bank of India, Clause A.5 mentioning rounding off cheques to the nearest Rupee, is reproduced below:-

    “As per extant instructions (contained in Master circular DBOD Dir.BC.6/13.03.00/2006-07 dated July 1, 2006 on Interest Rates on Deposits’), banks are required that all transactions, including payment of interest on deposits/charging of interest on advances, should be rounded off to the nearest rupee; i.e., fractions of 50 paise and above shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and fraction of less than 50 paise shall be ignored. It was also advised that issue prices of cash certificates should also be rounded off in the same manner. Banks were however, required that cheques issued by clients containing fractions of a  rupee should not be rejected or dishonoured.”

     

13. Not only this, ‘Handbook of Market Practices issued by Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India’ for rounding off transaction is followed and applied.Clause 4.11, which provides for rounding off is reproduced below:-

    “All interest receivable/payable should be rounded off ot the higher rupee if the paise component is equal to or higher than 50 paise and should be ignored if the paise component is less than 50 paise.

     

    The rounding off of paise should also be done in respect of broken period interest receivable payable.”

     

14. Thus, the Reserve Bank of India, which is regulating the Banks and the Market Leaders, i.e., Derivatives Association of India, in Commercial Activities the aforesaid practice for rounding off to the nearest Rupee is uniformly applied.We cannot lose sight of the aforesaid practice adopted in the Commercial Activities, whether it is Banking, Financial, Hospitality or Restaurants.The Revisionist had also adopted this practice of rounding off to the nearest Rupee, which by any stretch of imagination cannot amount to be indulging in any Unfair Trade Practice or Deficiency in Service.

     

15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not going in to the various decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Parties.

     

16. As we have come to the conclusion that the Revisionist had neither indulged in any Unfair Trade Practice nor there is any Deficiency in Service, the question of paying any compensation in the facts of the present case does not arise.The award of compensation is reduced to ‘Nil’.If any amount has been deposited by the Revisionist before this Commission or before the Fora below, it shall be refunded alongwith accrued interest, if any, to the Revisionist.However, if the amount or any part of it has been permitted to be withdrawn by the Complainants taking into consideration the special facts and circumstances of the case, the Complainants shall not be asked to refund the same.

     

17. In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission was not at all justified in upholding the Order passed by the District Forum and the Orders passed by both the Fora below are liable to be set aside and the Complaints are to be dismissed.We accordingly allow the Revision Petitions, set aside the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum and dismiss the Complaints.However, the Parties shall bear their own costs.