<br /> ORDER<br /> M/s Kapoor Light House through its Prop. Bishan Dass complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,09,776/- as compensation on account of loss due to fire alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.12.2005 till final payment and to pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment caused by the opposite parties alongwith cost of litigation. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the complainant is a firm carrying on its business of gas stoves, its spare parts and allied accessories, pressure cookers, its spare parts and allied accessories, gas chimnies, gas lighters and lamps, batteries and its spares, gas bhathies and its spares, agriculture spray pumps and its spare parts ad accessories, PVC pipes, nawar pati, plastic canes, welding material, water cooler and its spare parts, torches and its spare parts, electronic geasures, mixies alongwith its spare parts and numerous other items at Mall Road, Near Bhagat Singh Park, Faridkot and Bishan Dass is its Proprietor. The complainant is income tax assessee. The complainant has been availing the facility of Cash Credit Limit from State Bank of India, Faridkot for his business to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and at the time of grant of limit the bank officers have verified the stock lying in the shop of the complainant. The shop in which the complainant is running its business is owned by the complainant and is three storey shop. The complainant shop was fitted with wooden furniture. Goods worth Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- are generally stored in the shop of the complainant and complainant is running the shop for the last about 8/10 years. As the complainant has availed CC limit from the bank for running his business, so the complainant for the period from 18.7.2005 got insured the goods lying in the shop of complainant with the opposite parties vide Insurance Policy No. 360701/11/05/00204 valid up to 17.7.2006 in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with regard to fire risk. So complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. On 4.12.2005 in between 2.00 P.M. to 3.00 P.M all of sudden fire broke into the shop of the complainant and as the result of which the goods lying in the shop were gutted with to fire. Immediately fire brigade was called from Kotkapura and with the struggle of about 2 hours the fire was extinguished and employee of the complainant namely Kishan Singh also received burn injuries. The matter was also reported to the police, and a DDR No. 14 dated 4.12.2005 was also recorded in the P.S. City Faridkot. Due to fire goods worth Rs.1,79,553/- were burnt and the complainant suffered loss due to the fire to the tune of above amount. The complainant reported the matter to the State Bank of India who further inform the matter to the opposite parties and representative/surveyor of the opposite parties inspected the shop of complainant on 5.12.2005 and conducted the spot survey and assessed the loss due to fire. The complainant handed over the detailed statement of goods destroyed in fire to the representative of opposite party and they themselves verified the extent of loss during their spot survey. The complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties with regard to loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant furnished the statement of the goods to the opposite parties which were gutted due to fire. Photographs alongwith every document were furnished by the complainant to the opposite parties as desired by them from time to time, but the opposite parties instead of granting compensation very illegally, arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 19.5.2006. Then the complainant again personally approached the Branch Manager of the opposite parties and requested them to review their earlier decision and requested them to pay the compensation but ultimately on 30.11.2006 opposite parties got signatures of the complainant on some printed forms and handed over a cheque of Rs. 69,777/- to the complainant on account of compensation for the loss. The complainant highly objected the payment of such less claim but they kept on putting off the complainant with one or the other excuse. The complainant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,79,553/- the actual loss suffered by the complainant and duly verified by the opposite parties. Such conduct of the opposite parties is a clear cut deficiency in services. The complainant has suffered a lot of harassment so the complainant is also entitled damages of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 16.1.2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Atul Gupta Advocate who filed written reply on behalf of the opposite parties taking preliminary objections that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint as he has already received the amount of Rs.69,777/- from the opposite parties and the complainant also gave his consent and signed the amount of Rs.69,777/- as full and final settlement for the alleged loss and also duly agreed with the assessment made by the M/s Mittal Surveyors Private Limited. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any interest as well as damages as full and final claim has already paid to the complainant. The complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer as the complainant deals in business of gas, stove spare parts and allied accessories, pressure cookers which he sells for commercial purpose so does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the complaint which requires lengthy procedure of evidence act and as such matter be relegated to the Civil Court. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the complainant deals in stock of spare parts of stove, gas, cookers, lamps etc.. It is also admitted that the complainant availed cash credit limit of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is wrong that the goods worth Rs. 4,50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- were lying stored in the shop of the complainant for the last about two years. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the policy from the opposite parties. No fire broke out in the shop of the complainant on 14.12.2005. In fact the instant incident relates to 4.12.2005 as per the DDR and the opposite parties appointed M/s Mittal Surveyors Private Limited, Bathinda to assess the loss which allegedly took due to the outbreak of fire and they after verifying the premises of the complainant prepared detailed report regarding the fire and the loss. The Surveyors and the opposite parties kept on writing to the complainant to provide them requisite stock regarding the copy of bank stock statement duly verified by bank officials, copy of trading account up to the date of loss and other documents but nothing fruitful was done on the part of the complainant. The complainant never submitted the copy of bank statement and balance sheets. As no reply of the request letters was ever made by the complainant so Mittal Surveyors submitted the detailed report withs the opposite parties wherein the net loss assessed was Rs.69,777/- which amount already given to the complainant and has also been accepted by the complainant, sos the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is wrong if any statement of the goods was ever supplied to the opposite parties by the complainant. When the complainant was not cooperating with the Surveyors of the opposite parties then the opposite parties were left with no other alternative to issue letter dated 19.5.2006 but when the State Bank of India, Faridkot from which the complainant has obtained the Cash Credit Limit assured that they would provide the relevant and requisite documents the claim was assessed and amount of Rs.69,777/- was given to the complainant as full and final settlement. After reopening of claim at the request of the complainant he only submitted few documents which were considered. The claim was never repudiated as alleged. It is wrong if the signatures of the complainant were obtained on some printed forms, rather the complainant after accepting and settlement of claim as given by Mittal Surveyors accepted the cheque of Rs.69,777/-. The complainant never objected the receipt of payment. The amount of Rs.69,777/- is not at all less claim as alleged. It is wrong that the complainant suffered the loss of Rs.1,79,553/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties neither the compensation paid by the opposite parties is highly low, unreasonable and arbitrary. The complainant has not suffered any harassment so he is not at all entitled to the damages of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses. So the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence of affidavit Bishan Dass of Ex.C-1, copies of documents Ex.C-64 and closed evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Ashwani Kukkar D.M. Ex.R-1, affidavit of Sukhdev Singh B.M. Kotkapura Ex.R-2, copy of letter of claim disbursement voucher Ex.R-3, survey fee bill of M/s Mittal Surveyors Ex.R-4, copy of claim voucher Ex.R-5, copy of receipt dated 1.12.2006 Ex.R-6, carbon copy of letter dated 21.11.2006 Ex.R-7, copy of letter dated 30.10.2006 Ex.R-8, copy of letter dated 16.10.2006 Ex.R-9, copy of letter dated 3.10.2006 Ex.R-10, copy of letter dated 27.9.2006 Ex.R-11, copy of letter dated 7.9.2006 Ex.R-12, copy of letter dated 4.8.2006 Ex.R-13, copy of letter dated 8.7.2006 Ex.R-14, copy of letter dated 26.8.2006 Ex.R-15, copy of letter dated 19.5.2006 Ex.R-16, copy of report of surveyor Ex.R-17, fire claim form Ex.R-18, original receipt dated 6.12.2005 Ex.R-19, copy of statement of profit and loss account Ex.R-20, site plan Ex.R-21, statement of account Ex.R-22, copies of statement of Kapoor Light House Ex.R-23, photographic chart Ex.R-24, copy of letter dated 13.3.2006 Ex.R-25, copy of letter dated 11.3.2006 Ex.R-26, copy of letter dated 10.2.2006 Ex.R-27, copy of letter dated 19.12.2005 Ex.R-28, copy of letter dated 8.12.2005 Ex.R-29, copy of letter dated 5.12.2005 Ex.R-30, copy of policy Ex.R-31, affidavit of Parmod Mittal, C.A. Director, M/s Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. Bathinda Ex.RW-32 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,09,776/- on account of loss to the goods of the complainant due to the fire. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant already had been received amount of Rs.69,777/- from the opposite parties as full and final payment for the alleged loss, so now he is not entitled for any compensation.<br /> 10. From the perusal of the evidence and documents on the file it is made out that as per Ex.R-19 the opposite parties have paid Rs.69,777/- on 6.12.2005. It is an agreement executed by the complainant Bishan Dass for full and final settlement of the claim based on the report of the surveyor. It has not been established on the file if the signatures of the complainant have been taken by the opposite parties by practicing fraud. There is no such misrepresentation or fraud from the facts on the file, so the case cannot be reopened by the Forum. The Forum is not the appellate authority of the Insurance claim settled in such like manners.<br /> 11. It is found held in M/s Arora Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in Judicial Reports Consumer 2003(2) Page-70 that where the claim have been settled in the final analysis it amounts to a 'Quantum' dispute and it does not fall within the definition of consumer any more. <br /> 12. In such like circumstances the citations New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Ajay Kumar reported in Consumer Protection Judgments 1 (2001) Page-175 and R.K.Kaul Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in Consumer Protection Judgments 2000 Vol. II Page-564 relied upon by the counsel for the complainant having different facts and circumstances than that of the case in hand are not helpful to the complainant in any manner. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant.<br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant being devoid of merits is dismissed. There is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 18.1.2008<br /> <br /> <br />