Learned counsels for parties were heard, on admission. Salient features of the case under consideration are that to undertake herbal medicinal plantation, project of respondent No. 1 was accepted by State Medical Plant Board, Forest & Environment Department, Govt. of Orissa and subsidy of Rs. 2.50 lacs was sanctioned in two phases, following which a bank draft for Rs. 1,27,000/- was sent to petitioner – Bank to release first phase of financial assistance in favour of complainant. No action, however, was taken by petitioner – Bank to deposit aforesaid bank draft to account of complainant and resultantly, validity of bank draft lapsed on 12.07.2005. It was only on 15.07.2005 that on persuasion, petitioner declared bank draft to be invalid, its validity having lapsed on 12.07.2005. Draft was no more negotiable, the validity period having already expired. Alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed with District Forum which, on consideration of pleadings of parties, directed petitioner Bank (opp.party Nos. 1 to 3) to pay Rs. 1,27,000/- along-with interest as per Bank rate prevalent, from 29.06.2005. Compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service, was also awarded. State Commission, on appeal, while maintaining basic award of District Forum, modified order, directing cost of Rs. 5,000/- instead of compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. Obviously, there had been no withdrawal of sum from account of authorities, sanctioning subsidy of Rs. 1,27,000/- and had it been so, the consequences would have been admittedly, different. As there had been no collection of sum in question from account of sanctioning authority resting with State Bank of India, asking petitioner Bank to make good the loss covered by instrument, in our view, would be quite unfair and if that be permitted, complainant would be benefited twice, as still, the sanctioning authority would incur responsibility for sanctioning subsidy twice. In back-drop of these events, we can not accept that complainant was entitled to claim the amount which was not due to it, from Bank and complainant as such, cannot be permitted to take advantage of unconscionable bargain. We, accordingly, while deleting that part of award of State Commission which directs petitioner Bank to pay Rs. 1,27,000/- covered by the instrument, modify rest part of award directing Bank to pay payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1.