These two revision petitions, one being Revision Petition No.1686 of 2006 by the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (‘District Forum’ for short) and the other being Revision Petition No. 1999 of 2006 by the complainant, have been filed against a common order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘State Commission’ for short). While the complainant is unhappy that the full insured value of his car has not been ordered to be paid and, therefore, seeks enhancement of the award, the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 seeks setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission being irregular. Facts of the case, in short, are that the insurance policy for the car of the complainant was valid for a period of one year from 3rd of December, 2004 to 2nd of December, 2005. In order, therefore, to renew the insurance policy, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.1278/- towards the insurance premium on 2nd of December, 2004 to opposite party/respondent no.2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (‘Insurance Company’ for short). The dispute arose after the cheque when presented was not honoured by the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1, resulting in lapse of the insurance policy, and the car of the complainant was stolen on 5th of December, 2004, i.e. within three days of the issue of the cheque. A report with regard to the theft was lodged with the Police authorities and a claim was preferred with the Insurance Company, who repudiated the same on the ground that the cheque issued by the complainant for the insurance policy was not honoured by the Bank and the policy had been cancelled. The complainant thereafter approached the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 to make good the insured value of the car, which was declined. A complaint thereafter was filed before the District Forum, who vide its order dated 6th of February, 2005, holding the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 to be deficient in rendering service, awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved thereupon both the complainant as well as the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 filed their appeals before the State Commission, who vide the impugned order, while dismissing the appeal of the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1, has, however, partly accepted the appeal of the complainant and held that he would be entitled to Rs.45,000/-, being the 50% of the insured value of the car. Aggrieved once again that both the parties have filed their respective revision petitions before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. There is no doubt that for the dishonour of the cheque dated 2nd of December, 2004 for Rs.1278/-, which was the amount of premium, the complainant’s car insurance policy lapsed resulting in repudiation of his claim. It is the case of the complainant that when on the date he issued the cheque i.e. on 2nd of December, 2004 the statement of account in his credit reflected a balance of Rs.10,760/-; the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 had no reason not to have honoured the cheque for a paltry sum of Rs.1278/-. Both the fora below, relying on this averment of the complaint, have held the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 deficient in service. However, learned counsel for the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 contends that both the fora below appeared to have lost sight of the fact that a cheque for Rs.15,000/- issued by the complainant for credit into his account on the 10th of November, 2004 had been honoured and credited into his account maintained by them in anticipation of its clearance by the issuing branch, which, in the present case happened to be the same Bank’s Chandigarh Branch. This was done as per practice prevalent in the banking system. However, the whole problem arose because the cheque for Rs.15,000/- bounced as the complainant did not have sufficient funds to his credit in his account maintained with the State Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch. This bouncing of cheque has resulted in a cascading effect and when the cheque, even for a paltry sum of Rs.1278/-, was issued on the 2nd of December, 2004, in fact there was a negative balance and obviously the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 had no option but to return the cheque. These facts, learned counsel contends, have not been given due consideration by the fora below. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 has further submitted that proper opportunities were not provided by the District Forum for the defence of their case and even the State Commission had failed to consider the request of the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 that they had not been provided with a copy of the memo of appeal filed by the complainant. These contentions have been noted simply to be rejected as before the District Forum it was the fault of the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 in not pursuing the case diligently and before the State Commission when both sides have filed appeals, non-availability of the paper-book of the complainant has in no way prejudiced the interest of the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1. Be that as it may, the fact cannot be ignored that bank’s own statement of account reflected a balance of Rs.10,760/- when the cheque for a small amount of Rs.1278/- was issued on the 2nd of December, 2004. The State Commission in its order has given elaborate description of the transactions and has discussed each and every entry in the statement of account, including the alleged cheque of Rs.15,000/-, which rebounced. The State Commission while summing up the statement of account has stated as under :- “The question for determination is, was there anything wrong on the part of the complainant to issue a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,278/- on 2.12.2004? If one is to go by the Statement of Account as upto 2.12.2004, an amount of Rs.10,760/- was standing in the credit of complainant. We find nothing wrong if the complainant had issued a cheque on that date in the sum of Rs.1,278/-. Otherwise also, we are of the view that the amount of cheque is very small and one could otherwise also imagine that such an amount would be standing to his credit in the account. However, as observed above, the Statement of Account shows that on 2.12.2004, there was a credit balance of Rs.10,760/- in the account of the complainant. If the cheque had been dishonoured as per the bank on 18.11.2004, what stopped them from making an entry to the effect in the Statement of Account of the complainant immediately. Such an entry was made only on 3.1.2005. Therefore, we are of the view that the bank was deficient in service in not informing the complainant as to what was the balance amount on 2.12.2004 when the cheque was issued. According to us, the Statement of Account showed that on the date he had a balance of Rs.10,760/- and therefore was entitled to issue a cheque.” We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission. While the contention of the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 is that, if as a measure of good banking practice, credit is given for small denomination outstation cheques in anticipation of realization, honouring of a small cheque of Rs.1278/- should have also been given effect to, specially when their own statement of account did not reflect any deficit balance. To that extent, the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 cannot escape the allegation of being deficient. However, insofar as compensation is concerned, while the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation, the State Commission has related the compensation to the insured value of the car and has given 50% thereof i.e. 45,000/-, holding that since the car has been stolen, “interest of justice would be met if half of the amount which was insured by the complainant is allowed as compensation”. The award passed by the State Commission, in our view, cannot be sustained, as the compensation cannot be related to a remote damage/loss. Further, the District Forum had rightly opined that since the vehicle was not comprehensively insured, the question of indemnification of total loss did not arise. It is also to be noted that the complainant has not rebutted the contention of the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 that his cheque dated 10th of November, 2004 for Rs.15,000/- was dishonoured for want of balance in his account at the Chandigarh Branch. Therefore, in the totality, the District Forum had very correctly arrived at the figure of Rs.10,000/- to be awarded as compensation. It has also imposed a cost of Rs.1000/-. For the foregoing reasons, while we do not find any merit for total acceptance of Revision Petition No. 1686 of 2006 filed by the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 to quash the order of the State Commission, we also do not find merit in the Revision Petition No. 1999 of 2006 filed by the complainant for the enhancement of the compensation. However, we find the award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.1000/- to be fair, just and appropriate order and while setting aside the order of the State Commission, order the State Bank of India/opposite party no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from today, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest thereon @ 9% per annum till its payment. Both the revision petitions are disposed of in these terms.