Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case since been allowed by the Ld. District Forum vide impugned order, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is preferred.

The dispute relates to realization of a sum of Rs. 1,19,000/- from the pension account of the Respondent by the Appellant Bank. 

Justifying such move, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the said amount was debited from the pension account of the Respondent in order to adjust debit balance of the fishery loan account stood in the name of the Respondent.  He argued that, on the strength of the Hypothecation agreement inked between the parties, the bank was well within its right to do so and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

We heard the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent in the matter too and gone through the documents on record carefully.

The moot point for determination is whether such adjustment was permissible under the law, or not.

It appears that, in terms of the proviso (g) of Section 60(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, Bank authorities are precluded from realizing the outstanding due of any loan account from the pension account of a person. Such adjustment is impermissible in law. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 376, is worth mentioning here. 

Seen against this backdrop, we find no infirmity with the impugned order.  In the facts and circumstances, however, we exonerate the Appellant from the liability of paying punitive charge as ordered by the Forum below.

The Appeal, thus, stands allowed in part.