PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who was the original complainant against the order dated 18th April 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench no. 3 at Jaipur (in short, he State Commission, by which the State Commission had allowed the appeal filed by respondents against the order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (in short, he District Forum) and set aside the order of the District Forum. 2. The factual matrix of this case are like that the petitioner had insured his godown no. 644 with the insurance company of the respondents. The godown caught fire on 15.04.2007 and according to the petitioner he suffered a loss of Rs.25,23,552/-. The insurance company got the investigation done through a surveyor and allowed the claim of Rs.14,76,264/- and also made payment thereof to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the surveyor did not treat the goods worth Rs.6,59,459/- belonging to the petitioner but treating these goods to be of Surana Associates, a sister concern company of the petitioner and rejected the same and stated that transferring the entire goods had been made with an intention to make the claim. Accepting the plea made by the petitioner, the District Forum vide its aforesaid order allowed the complaint and held that the insurance company had not produced any evidence in addition to the report of the surveyor and under these circumstances, it could not be admitted that the complainant/petitioner had not purchased goods from the Surana Associates. The Order of the District Forum read as under: 9. Consequently complaint of the appellant is allowed against non-applicant insurance company and non-applicant insurance is hereby ordered to make the payment of Rs.6,59,459/- to the applicant with 9% interest per annum from the date of the filing of complaint till the date of payment and litigation cost of Rs.1,500/- within a period of two months from the date of order or to make deposit the amount in forum 3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the insurance company filed an appeal against the same before the State Commission which allowed it and set aside the order of the District Forum. 4. We have heard Mr Harsha Vardhan Surana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Commission committed a mistake in accepting the plea of the insurance company based on the report of the surveyor. He submitted that the District Forum has rightly included the goods kept in the godown when the fire broke out and the total amount of loss because of the presence of goods in the godown at that time was not at all disputed by the respondents. The only contention which was relied upon by the State Commission in the impugned order was that the surveyor had said that the goods under dispute were not insured as they were kept in by friendly transfer and not by proper sale purchase. Another contention raised by the learned counsel was in respect of receipt of part payment towards claim of the petitioner from the insurance company. He submitted that the State Commission has erred in its observation that since the petitioner had received the part payment as full and final settlement and hence, he was not entitled to raise any further claim. He further submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the amount was accepted by the petitioner because of his helplessness of undergoing financial hardship due to loss in the business caused by the fire and his business rotation would have suffered if he had not received the part payment from the insurance company. He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the District Forum which was a well-reasoned order needs to be maintained and the impugned order be set aside. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner. We find that the State Commission has reversed the order of the District Forum by giving reasons which are in line with the established legal decision and the judgment of the Apex Court. Coming to the first plea regarding the exclusion of goods, the value at Rs.6,59,459/- is based on the report of the surveyor. It is well established by now that the report of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company is an important document and the same should not be rejected by the Fora below unless cogent reasons are recorded for doing so. The State Commission has stated that it did not see any legal ground before the District Forum to reject the report of the surveyor. The report of the surveyor should have been rebutted on behalf of the complainant/ petitioner since the respondents/OPs had filed the surveyor report as their evidence. Besides this, the State Commission has also recorded the following circumstances which lead the State Commission to reject the plea of the petitioner: he owner of Surana Associates has been stated to be Dinu Surana whereas the owner of Surana Electronics has been stated to be Ankur Suarana. The name of the father of the both is Mahendra Singh Surana. In this way the relation of these both is proved. It has occurred in the report of the surveyor that disputed goods were available in the godown of Surana Electronics and it belongs to Suaran Associates. It was put there only as trust because both are having relations together. Hence, these goods were kept in the godown as trust and goods were not insured. In addition this fact has also occurred that the fire incident occurred on 15.04.2007 and at the same day Surana Associates has stated to sale these goods to Suarana Electronics. It is also a strange co-incidence. As well as these facts have also come on record that goods which have been stated to be of Surana Associates on 15.04.2007, prior to the same Surana Electronics had never purchased the same 6. So far as the other ground taken by the petitioner is concerned, the receipt of amount of Rs.14,76,264/- sent by the insurance company against the claim put up by the petitioner is not disputed by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner filed certain additional documents which have been placed on record in which it has been included. Copy of the voucher signed by the petitioner indicates that he has received the amount in question by way of full and final discharge of his claim against the insurance company/ respondents. This being the undisputed factual position, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the Consumer Forum for the balance amount treating the payment as only part payment against the claim unless he establishes that he accepted the amount under undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud played by the insurance company. No such plea has been put forth by the petitioner. The only point made by learned counsel is that after receipt of the amount, the petitioner sent a letter to the insurance company asking for the payment of balance amount. This, however, cannot provide any comfort to the petitioner to reopen the matter having accepted the amount sent by the insurance company and signed the discharge vouched sent by the insurance company. The claim of the petitioner stood settled. The view taken by the State Commission is in line with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance vs Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors. [(1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 400]. In the absence of any allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, we cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the revision petition which is liable to be dismissed. We dismiss the same at the threshold with no order as to cost.