Factual matrix are that cheque for Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn in favour of petitioner was presented by him to State Bank of Patiala at Mansa for collection of sum and crediting it in his account resting with the Bank. Even though cheque was deposited with respondent Bank on 10.08.2004, neither sum in question was credited to the account of the petitioner nor there was trace of the cheque. Alleging deficiency in service of respondent Bank, consumer complaint was filed seeking direction to respondent for credit of Rs. 4,00,000/- to his account, apart from compensation and cost of proceeding. Complaint was resisted by respondent Bank holding that services of courier which were availed by Bank for delivery of cheque in question to the collecting Bank had delivered the consignment on wrong address for which legal notice had been issued against courier service. District Forum, on appraisal of issue and also putting reliance on State Bank of Patiala defence, while accepting complaint, putting reliance on Vishwas Ahuja case, directed Bank to make good the loss of amount equal to the amount mentioned in the cheque i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- by depositing it with the account of the complainant. Information obtained by respondent Bank from ICICI Bank, where Sh. B.R. Bahl had his account and had issued cheque in question, however, made startling disclosure that the statement of account obtained from aforesaid Bank shows that Sh. Bahl who issued the cheque in question had only Rs. 32,549/- in his account and that apart, even the account No. of Sh. Bahl with the Bank, was not in conformity with the account No. shown in the instrument issued by him. Counsel for respondent Bank subsequently sought clarification from District Forum whether the amount in question, awarded by District Forum, was to be deposited with the account of petitioner, and District Forum getting apprised of the subsequent events which ostensibly show lack of sufficient funds in the account of Sh. Bahl, directed that payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be withheld till the time the applicant Bank gets thorough probe in the matter of loss of cheque. District Forum noticed that there was certainly something amiss. Aggrieved with subsequent order which was considered as part of previous order, passed by District Forum, petitioner filed revision petition. When the matter came in appeal before State Commission, it noticed the ratio of decision of National Commission given on 15.02.2005 in RP No. 310/2004 in the matter of State Bank of Patiala Vs. Vishwas Ahuja, which over-ruled finding of State Commission in Vishwas Ahuja case and hence reversed the finding of District Forum, while accepting appeal. There is no gain-saying the fact that in case of loss of cheque presented with Bank, the person presenting it, unless it is shown that the amount had been debited to the account of the person who had issued the cheque, was not entitled to compensation or claim the amount of the loss of cheque. However, to mitigate the sufferings of the person aggrieved, adequate compensation was permissible. Even if there would have been sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque issued by him, even if the cheque would not have been lost, there could not have been satisfaction of the instrument issued in favour of the petitioner. That apart, no efforts appear to have been made by petitioner to approach Mr. Bahl apprising him of piquant situation which had arisen, for Bahl having no sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque. Learned counsel for petitioner puts much stress on Section 35-A of Negotiable Instruments Act which simply gives option to the aggrieved person to approach the drawer of the instrument to give another bill of the same tenor, giving security to the drawer, if required, to indemnify him against all persons, whatsoever, in case the bill alleged to have been lost shall be found again. Provision aforesaid also creates a situation to compel the drawer to give duplicate bill and for which he may be compelled to do so. No evidence was led on part of the petitioner to impress us that he had approached for issuance of duplicate cheque after the cheque issued was lost. State Commission had disposed of appeal and also revision petition filed by petitioner against subsequent order passed in the proceeding, withholding the amount of cheque till a probe was made by the Bank. Certain observations made by District Forum about CBI to investigate the case was also rightly deleted. Finding of State Commission which was well reasoned, based on ratio of decision of National Commission, did not require interference. Revision petition is consequently dismissed. No order as to cost. However, the compensation awarded by State Commission be paid to petitioner within two months, if not paid earlier.