Consumer protection act , 1986

Thank you sir,  for ur valuable reply...

actually the exact details are as under:

The bill amounted Rs.283.5 ( Rs270 + Rs.13.5 of VAT ) and the software rounded off it to Rs.284. However the bill shows clearly  the rounded off  figure of Rs.0.5 . The customer is threatening to sue under the consumer protection act 1986. The intention of vendor is not malafide and the only reason for rounding off is that 50 paisa coins are not generally in trade. So please guide me whether customer can sue for such a petty amount under this act. or under any other act (like MRTP etc ) ?

The vendor is engaged in running a restaurant.

My second question is that , in case if customer sue then whether any remedy is available for the vendor in any of the acts. ????

dear sir,

theory of unjust enrichment would have come into picture when we were rounding off one side that is more than 50 paisa always, in this case vendor rounds off to preeciding rupee also in some bills that is 262.40 is rounded of to 262 rs only under financial law. also financial law states that we can round of 50 paisa and above so this theory is not playing in this case , so here there is no malafide intention of vendor as such.

also under mrtp act :

A restrictive trade practice is a trade practice,

“Which tends to bring about manipulation of prices or conditions of delivery or effected the flow of supplies in the market of any goods or services, imposing on the consumers unjustified cost or restrictions”

In our case vendor did not manipulated the price as he had clearly stated that he was  charging 50 paisa against round off. That meant that if the customer had 50 paisa change than he would have paid Rs 262.50 as stated in our bill. If vendor have shown Rs. 263  in the price column instead of Rs.262.50  and nowhere mentioned the term "rounded" against the totals, vendor  would  have definitely charged higher amount than the prescribed value of the goods. But the invoice shows the price as Rs.262.50  and use  the word "rounded" while totalling or specifying the amount in words so vendor do not have any malafide intention in this case.

vendor.s restaurant is a high ended  and  customer base is also of middle class and upper middle class. 50 paisa is such a small amount which does not matter as such to such clientale, so  contention of client  going under harassment and going under mental agony does not hold true as is caused by charging 50 paisa more by vendor.

-  also wish to mention that the time of our courts in our country is very precious and should not be wasted to discuss such trivial and petty issues of 50 paisa under maxim.

de minimis non curat lex, "the law cares not for small things. ... to avoid the resolution of trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny