This complaint coming up before us for hearing on admission the Forum doth order as under: ORDER <br /> By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant had previously filed C.C.No.81/08 before this Forum. This case was settled on 01-8-2008 between complainant and opposite party who was represented by Sri.Sunil Kumar. The terms of settlement was arrived by the parties. It is the case of complainant that as per settlement his photostat machine was replaced by a new machine and by payment of additional amount of Rs.12,000/- After settlement between parties complainant filed petition seeking permission to withdraw the complainant and for orders accordingly. The complaint C.C.81/08 was thus dismissed on 01-8-2008. The present complaint is filed by him alleging that after a week he realised that he has been cheated by the terms of settlement. The main allegation stated in the complaint is that as per settlement his old machine was taken by opposite party for a price of Rs.11,000/- and by paying additional amount of Rs.12,000/- opposite party gave him a new photostat machine. Thus the total price of the new machine was Rs.23,000/-. Presently he alleges that on enquiries made by him he has come to know that the machine is available for Rs.16,274/-. He alleges fraud and deceit played by opposite party in terms of settlement and prays for refund of the Rs.6,726/- being the difference in price of the photostat machine which costs only Rs.16,274/- according to him. He also prays for Rs.35,500/- towards mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards costs. Complainant was heard by us. From his submissions and records before us we find that he is aggrieved about the terms of settlement. When parties arrive at a settlement they have a duty and responsibility to be cautious about the terms and conditions of settlement. Any settlement gives finality to a litigation and should subsume any further litigation. Further his allegation is that the act of opposite party amounted to fraud and cheating. Needless to say this is beyond the scope of adjudication before Consumer Forum.<br /> For the above reasons, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable and is only to be dismissed. We make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 20th day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-<br /> MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER