Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the impugned order dated 19.4.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (for short “the State Commission”), whereby the Complaint preferred by the Appellant herein has been dismissed.  It is not in dispute that the Appellant had two accounts in Andhra Bank (Respondent herein).  One was the Current Account and other was the Overdraft Account.  Due to non-payment of the dues, the Current Account was freezed on 18.7.2013 and the Overdraft Account was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).  The Appellant had issued two cheques of ₹1,75,000/- and ₹2,00,000/-, the payment of which was not made by the Andhra Bank (Respondent herein) on 18.7.2013, as a result of which the cheques were returned as “bounced”.  A sum of ₹225/- was also debited to the Account of the Appellant towards miscellaneous charges.  The Appellant filed a Complaint being Case No.6/2015 before the State Commission and submitted that there has been deficiency in service and claimed a sum of ₹49,99,990/- as compensation.  The State Commission, after examining the evidence and material on record, came to the conclusion that as the Current Account was freezed on 18.7.2013 and the Overdraft Account was declared as NPA, the Respondent Bank was perfectly justified in not honouring the two cheques issued by the Appellant, which were presented on 18.7.2013, the date on which the Current Account was freezed.  Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the recovery proceeding initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”) was challenged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (DRT) and vide order dated 23.8.2016 passed by DRT in S.A. Case No.17/16, the recovery proceeding initiated by the Respondent Bank was set aside.  Be that as it may, DRT had passed order on 23.8.2016 and there was no interim order in favour of the Appellant before the DRT.  Dishonouring of the Cheques was made by the Bank on 18.7.2013, i.e. more than a month before the order was passed by the DRT.  The Bank was under no obligation to honour the cheques issued from the Account, which was already freezed and therefore, the State Commission was perfectly justified in holding that there was no deficiency in service.

        In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the State Commission was perfectly justified in dismissing the Complaint.

        The Appeal fails and is dismissed.