Heard counsel for the petitioner for some time.  The State Commission has come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and policy cannot be restored.  The revision has been filed against concurrent findings of two fora below.  The State Commission has found that the cheque given by the petitioner was dishonoured since on the cheque, the location of drawee Bank was not properly mentioned.  The cheque  issued by the petitioner was returned to the Mumbai Office. The insurance company issued policy in anticipation of encashment of cheque.  In such a situation encashment of cheque is essential for assumption of risk.  The cheque was returned with endorsement that location of drawee Bank is not clear.  The cheque was again represented but it was returned with same endorsement.  It was equally  the responsibility of the complainant/ petitioner to check from the Bank whether the cheque had been encashed and in case it bounced, he could pay the premium in cash.  It is more so when no debit entry is there in the account of the insured which one is expected to check after issue of cheque.  In spite of that, the fora below have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- for metal agony as also expenses on account of the fact that the insurance company had not informed the present petitioner of the dishonour of the cheque of the petitioner.  The claim of the petitioner for restoration of policy was rejected on the ground that the period of policy had already expired.

In view of this, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the orders of fora below.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.