Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short tate Commission in appeal No. 1616/2008. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the aggrieved Insurance Company against the order dated 14.10.2008 of the District Forum thereby partly allowing the complaint and directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,050/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of the order alongwith cost of Rs.950/-. In appeal going by the facts and circumstances, evidence and material brought on record and in particular that the complainant had taken the insurance for premises D-12-513, Bellampally X Road, Mancherial for a sum of Rs.20 lakh and the peril had taken place at a different premises namely, D-12-610 to 612, Bellampally X Road, where the complainant was running his bar and restaurant in the name Venkateshwara bar and restaurant the State Commission held that the premises where the peril had taken place were not covered under the insurance policy. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the complaint was dismissed. 2. We have heard Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Tripathi for the respondent Insurance Company and have considered their respective submissions besides perusal of the record. From a bare perusal of the proposal form and the insurance policy brought on record, it is manifest that the complainant had himself put-up a proposal for taking insurance to cover his restaurant and bar for a sum of Rs.20 lakh at premises D. No. 12-513, Belampally Road in Mancherial town. The contention of the complainant is that this might be a mistake of fact because he never established a restaurant and bar at the aforesaid address and in fact, the said restaurant and bar was being run from D-12-610 to 612 at Highway Road, Mancherial. In any case the submission is that there cannot be any dispute about the peril and the Insurance Company in all fairness should have settled the claim of the complainant as per the surveyor report or least in terms of the order of the District Forum. On the other hand, Mr. Tripathi submits that the contract of insurance is based on utmost good-faith between the parties and al the contents of the Policy has to be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy. We are not being informed under what circumstances this glaring mistake about the identity of the premises had happened and for what reasons. Once insured has taken the insurance covering a particular premises, he cannot be heard later saying that the premises in the proposal form or the policy were incorrectly mentioned and that the Insurance Company was well aware that the bar and restaurant is being run at a different premises. In the case in hand, it was amply proved and it is not disputed otherwise that no restaurant and bar was being run from D-12-513, Bellampally Road, Mancherial, the insured premises. In our view, the District Forum had gravely erred in allowing the complaint and the State Commission did well in correcting the said error and dismissing the complaint. In our opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference of this Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction. Dismissed.