SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for a direction to correct the vehicle Number in the policy certificate and for realization of expenses, compensation, costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is a businessman conducting a curry powder factory and a cashew factory. Who is the owner of a 2004 Model Maruthi Omni bearing Reg.No.KL.2S 9622. He purchase the vehicle for his private use in connection with the business. The opp.parties approached the complainant at his residence for canvassing for an insurance Policy of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. They gave a brief instructions regarding the conditions of the policy and the complainant has taken a policy in respect of his vehicle for the period from 24.7.2007 to 23.7.2008. The fixed premium amount of Rs.4000/- was paid at the time of availing the policy the opp.parties collected a photograph of the number plate of the vehicle land photocopy of the R.C. book. After receiving the policy certificate and identity card the complainant came to know that the vehicle number in the policy certificate and identity card is mistakenly and purposefully mentioned as against KL.02S 9662 . This is done intentionally due negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties the complainant is not in a position to use his vehicle The complainant has preferred a complaint before the opp.party as No.2841845 but it is of no use. The complainant is unable to use the vehicle with a defective policy certificate. Even after several requests the opp.parties did not rectified the defect. As a business man the vehicle is very much necessary for the complainant and he has to travel about 80 to 100 KM S every day in connection with his business so he hired a taxi from 24.7.2007 onwards for a hire charges of Rs.6/-per Km and spend a huge amount for hire charges. Hence the complaint The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opp.parties. There complainant is filed suppressing material facts. It is true that the complainant has availed the service in respect of chitty bearing Reg. No. KL-2S/9622. The previous policy pertaining with M/s. United India Insurance Co. and the policy was issued with coverage applicable to commercial vehicle. On expiry of the said vehicle the opp.party has issued a policy on collection of the premium, towards premium he had issued a cheque dated 23.8.07. But the payment was pending due to short collection of Rs.500/- and finally full payment was made only on 24.9.07. On 26.9.07 the policy was issued. The policy was received by the complainant himself after verifying the details of policy including the Reg.No. and type of vehicle. After receipt of policy nothing was heard from the complainant subsequently in November, the complainant made an oral request for correcting the vehicle number of the policy as it carriers registration No.KL-2S/9662 instead of KL-2S/9622. The complainant thereupon directed to produce the photos of the vehicle and the RC book. But the complainant replied that the vehicle is given for painting and changing the number plate.. However on 13.11.2007 the vehicle number is corrected in the policy by making necessary endorsements. The delay in effecting the vehicle the delay on the part of the customer who has not given the photos of the vehicle but this fact of subsequent endorsement made by the insurer The allegation that the opp.party has willfully changed the number in the policy certificate in order to evade from the process of insurance claim and to obtain unlawful is denied. The claim of the complainant towards damages on account of his taxi charges is exorbitant and false. The contention that the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 4,000/- which was collected as premium is also unsustainable. The premium amount is the consideration of the policy unless and until the policy is cancelled at the instance of the refund of the premium. The complainant has not sustained any mental agony of damage to priority due to none use of the vehicle. The complainant attempt to make fortunate out of misfortune by exposing a clerical error occurred in the insurance policy. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P3 are marked. For the complainant DW.1 is examined Ext. D1 and D2 are marked Points: There is no dispute that the complainant has taken an insurance policy from the opp.party for his vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-2S 9622. It is also not in dispute that the Registration Number of the vehicle was shown wrong in the policy. The contention of the complainant is that the policy Number was shown wrong deliberately by the opp.party with view to evade payment of compensation in the event of a claim being made. According to the opp.party the mistake in the Reg.No. of the vehicle is only a clerical error crept in due to inadvertence and they have no intention to repudiate any claim that may be preferred. It is to be noted that in the policy in addition to the Reg.No., the Engine No. and chassis No. of the vehicle are also shown. Even the complainant has no case that there is any mistake in the engine number or chassis number of the vehicle. As argued by the learned counsel for the opp.party an established reputed institutions will never do such a thing deliberately. There is absolutely nothing to show the opp.party has any enmity towards the complainant for doing so. There is also no instance of refusal of any claim made by the complaint by the opp.party under the above policy. Therefore we are not inclined to accept the contention that the mistake in the policy regarding registration number was made by the opp.party deliberately. On the other hand we are of the view that it is a clerical error crept due to inadvertence as contended by the opp.parties.. The complainant is claiming Rs.4,000/- being the premium paid to the opp.party for the policy. Policy was in force till 23.7.2008 is not disputed by the complainant also. When a valid policy is issued as against a premium and when the policy was put touse by the complainant through out the policy period, no question of refund of the policy premium arises. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has no case that he has not used the policy after the rectification of the error in the registration number. The complainant is claiming Rs.81,000/- towards damages on account of taxi charges paid by him as he was unable to use his vehicle because of the mistake in the registration number. However no evidence, worth believable, is produced to establish that he has actually spent such a huge amount towards taxi charges. The number of the vehicle engaged by him nor the trip sheet or any record of the engaged vehicle was also not produced. In the absence of cogent materials the only inference that can be drawn is that the complainant has not engaged any vehicle as alleged by him. When a huge amount is claimed towards compensation the complainant has duty to establish as to how he has incurred so much expenditure. As argued by the opp.party it cannot be believed that the complainant has expended so much amount for engaging other vehicles. It is also pertinent to point out that when there is mistake in the Registration Number alone and the engine number and chassis number are the same, there is no harm in using the vehicle and no insurance company would repudiate a claim in the event of making the same in such cases The complainant has filed this complaint on 3.1.2008. Ext.D1 shows that the mistake in the policy was rectified by the opp.party on 13.11.2007. Even according to the complainant in cross examination at page number 2 that he has received the corrected policy on 28.12.2007. It that be so, the complaint filed on 3.1.2008 has become infrectuous. For all that has been discussed above we are of the view that from the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with cost of the opp.party Rs.1,000/- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. : I N D E X PW.1. – Ravinadhan Pillai T.K. List of documents for the complainant P1. –Copy of RC book P2. – Certificate issued by opp.party P3. – Copy of ID Card List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Alice John List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Certificate Cum Motor Policy Schedule D2.- Original policy | 
