A.L. Babri, President - Punjab National Bank. Jalandhar Cantt, is the appellant and the challenge is to the order dated May 13. 1998 passed by District Forum. Jalandhar vide which a direction was given to the bank. the opposite party to release all the payments of arrears of pension from Saving Bank Account No. 19251 of the complainant Jagdish Singh Matharu w.e.f. February 1, 1992 till date and to pay interest on the amount so determined @ 18% p.a. from the date of accrual till payment. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- as special damages and Rs. 2,000/- as costs were also ordered to be paid to the complainant.

2. Jagdish Singh Matharu. Govt. Servant having retired from Ministry of Defence Service in the year 1987 was getting his pension through Punjab National Bank. Church Road. Jalandhar Cantt. Branch as allowed by C.D.A.(Pension) Allahabad: Since February 1, 1992, the bank did not allow him to operate the account No. 19251 wherein the banker was deposting the pension, illegally and with male-fide intention inspite of representations made. He approached the District Forum with the complaint. It was asserted that he had secured a loan of Rs. 54,795/- from the bank in order to purchase a photostat machine. He had refunded the loan to the extent of Rs. 22,000/- and for the remaining amount due, a civil suit was filed by the opposite party which was decreed and that his pensionary account was being withheld on that account which was a deficiency in rendering service on the part of the bank as well as negligent act. The bank has refused to allow him to draw money from the aforesaid account. It was further asserted that his wife was suffering from Cancer and was getting treatment from Oswal Cancer Hospital where lot of money was needed and thus he suffered loss as he could not withdraw the money from his account. The bank in its version took up several pleas, inter-alia, alleging that the relationship of debtor and creditor existed and the complainant could not be considered as a consumer. The Fora could not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits broad facts as stated above were admitted. The bank had a lien over the money of the complainant lying in the account aforesaid and to adjust the amount against the decree obtained by the bank against the complainant. The District Forum framed two questions for consideration as under:-

1. Whether the complainant is not a consumer and he cannot maintain the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not allowing the complainant to operate his saving bank account No. 19251 as alleged?

3. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, under issue No. 1 the complainant was held to be a consumer and Fora had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and thus the question was answered in favour of the complainant. Under question No. 2 finding recorded was against the bank. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 that the bank could not claim the pensionary amount, hence the impugned order was passed.

4. The only question involved in the present case is about the applicability of Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871. It reads as under:

"And no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance shall be liable to seizure. Attachment or sequestration by process of any Court at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.

5. It may be observed that so long the amount of pension remains with the authorities granting pension, the provision aforesaid would be applicable that such amount which are required to be paid as pension cannot be attached. However, the moment the pensionary amount is released and is credited in the account of the pensioner in the bank, it ceases to retain the character of pension, but it becomes the money of the pensioner. In the