SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for an excess amount of Rs,1,00,000/-, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complaint is the owner of a stationery shop engaged in the sale of stationery items for the last 51 years near at Moonamkutty, Kollam. The complainant has obtained a policy from the opp.party on the basis of the proposal given by the insured sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the 3rd opp.party. But unfortunately onn 9.9.2006 the insured shop caught fire at night. After the said incident the complainant approached the 1st opp.party and claimed Rs.346436/- as insurance amount. But the 1st and 2nd opp.parties allowed only Rs.1,50,000/- The complainant approached this Forum for getting the balance claim amount as well as compensation due to the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practice of the 1st and 2nd opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant in this case had already received the claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim by executing a discharge voucher duly stamped and signed by him along with the 3rd opp.party on 23.1.2007. The insurance amount was received by the complainant in full satisfaction and discharge of the said claim. The discharge voucher was signed by the complainant along with the 3rd opp.party voluntarily and freely without any protest. The opp.parties have issued a standard fire and special peril policy for a insured sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant with an endorsement of bank clause for his shop premises engaged in the sale of Books and Stationery items under the name and style Shaji Books stall at Moonamkuitty., Kollam. The complainant has reported a claim before the 1st opp.party stating that the insured shop caught fire during night on 9.9.2006 and the stocks kept in the shop room were destroyed. The opp.party immediately issued a claim form to the complainant with a request to resubmit the same after duly filled and signed along with the estimate of loss The opp.party thereafter deputed a licensed surveyor and loss assessor for conducting a survey of the claim reported by the complainant and for assessing the extent of loss sustained to the complainant. On 10.9.2006 the surveyor has conducted the survey in the presence of the complainant The surveyor at the time of inspection found that the shop and the contents therein such as stock of books, stationery items, furniture and fittings are damaged by fire which was occurred at about 12.30 a.m. on 10.9.2006. The allegations made in the complaint that the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.3,50,000/- due to the incident of fire is totally baseless and false. The surveyor at the time of his inspection found that the complainant was not maintaining any stock register and was not in possession of any purchase bills or any authentic documents showing the actual stocks maintained by the complainant in his shop premises at the time of loss. The complainant has given a list of 521 items showing a total cost of Rs.3,46,436.60 to the opp.party claiming to be the value of the stocks kept in the shop premises at the time of fire. On a careful examination of the above list, it can be seen that the items mentioned in the list and its quantity and the cost are exaggerated figures without any basis. The surveyor though requested the complainant to produce authentic documents to show the actual physical stock at the time of fire incident, the complainant did not produce any of such documents and has given a reply that most of the documents were damaged due to fire. The surveyor on going through the fire report prepared by the Fire Force authorities after fire fighting operations, found that according to the fire force authorities, the approximate damage sustained to the articles kept in the shop is assessed as Rs.756,000/- The surveyor after detailed examination at the place of occurrence and after ascertaining various aspects in detail has assessed the total loss to a sum of Rs.1.60,000/- and submitted the report dated 22.11.2006 before this opp.party. The opp.party after receipt of the survey report from the surveyor has settled the claim for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- after deducting compulsory policy excess of Rs.10,000/- from the net liability assessed by the surveyor. There is no deficiency in the service on the part of these opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties pray to dismiss the complaint. The 3rd opp.party filed a separate version contending, interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 3rd opp.party is totally an unnecessary party in this proceedings. No allegation of deficiency in service or negligence has been alleged against the 3rd opp.party. The averment in the complaint that the 3rd opp.party is not entitled to realize interest for the defaulted amount from the complainant is not at all sustainable. The complainant is liable to pay interest for the outstanding amount, as per the terms and conditions which he had agreed at the time of availing the credit facility. The complainant has not claimed any relief as against the 3rd opp.party. Hence the 3rd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is the deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 to 3 are examined. Exts. P1 to P 6 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 to 3 are examined. Exts. D1 to D4 are marked. Points: The complaint is filed by the complainant with a quantum dispute regarding the amount awarded on the basis of Ext. D4 Survey report. The case of the complainant is that the amount awarded by the surveyor is very low. However he failed to establish that the report filed by Surveyor is vitiated. According to the surveyor the various records such as stock Register, copies of purchase bills, sales bills etc were not produced before him by the complainant. The complainant has no case that the necessary documents produced by lhim have not been considered by the surveyor while preparing Ext. D4. The power of District Forum in interfering with survey reports which is evidence is limited and can interfere with the same only when it is arbitrary or when the complainant establishes that the surveyor failed to consider all relevant records produced by him.. It is well settled that the Consumer Forum has no right to sit in judgement on the report of surveyors. In this case in our view the complaint failed to establish that Ext.D4 is vitiated. As pointed out earlier the complainant herein involves a quantu7m dispute and it is well settled that the Consumer Fora cannot go into quantum dispute and reliance can be drawn from the decision of National Commission reported in 111 [2008] CPJ93. It has been further held therein that in such circumstances the petition shall be free to either approach the Civil Court or IRDA or Arbitration proceedings. Another contention is that the complainant has received the insurance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in full and final settlement. It is argued by the opp.parties that Ext. D1 discharge voucher was executed by the complainant voluntarily with his free will and there is no allegation either in the complaint or in the chief affidavit that Ext. D1 is vitiated by fraud, or misrepresentation or undue influence. As a matter of fact there is no pleading that Ext. D1 is vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence. No evidence is also let in this regard. Moreover Ext. D1 is signed by the bank authorities also. The bank manager was examined as DW.1 The Bank Manager has also no case that Ext. D1 is vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence. The learned counsel for opp.parties 1and 2 would convasses the point that in the absence of pleading that the discharge voucher was executed under vitiating circumstances such as undue influence misrepresentation or fraud the complaint is liable to be dismissed holding that the discharge voucher was executed voluntarily on free will relying on the decision of Apex Court reported in II [2008]CPJ 18 . It has been further held therein that “If in a given case the Consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by it circumstances the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief”. In this case as pointed out earlier the complainant failed to plead and prove such vitiating factors in the execution of Ext. D1. So this Forum has no other alternative than to hold that Ext. D1 was executed voluntarily in full and final settlement. In view of the foregoing paras we hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any enhancement in compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The complainant shall be free to either approach the civil court or IRDA under provisions of 64 UM of Insurance Act or invoke the condition of the policy for reference to arbitration in case of quantum dispute. Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2010 I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – A. Shamsudheen PW.2. – Shajahan PW.3. – Arif List of documents for the complainant P1. – FIR and Mahazar P2 – Fire force report P3. – Letter dated 30.10.2006 P4. – Copy of claim form P5. – Photo with Negatives and bills P6. – Acknowledgement card with receipt List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Anu.R DW.2. – G. Leela DW.3. – Siva money List of documents for the opp.party D1 – Discharge voucher D2. -Letter sent by Sivamoney [DW.3] to the complainant D3. –Estimate given by the complainant to the surveyor D4. – Survey report | 
