JUDGMENT : As per S.K. Kulshrestha, J. (President) : - By this appeal the appellant (opposite party) assails the order dated 24-10-2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur passed in C.C. No. 53/2009 whereby the District Forum has directed reversal of the amount withdrawn by the Bank from the account of respondent-Athairam. 2. As per the facts narrated by learned Counsel, one Hem Singh Rajput had taken loan in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for construction of the house but did not pay a single instalment towards the payment thereof. His guarantor was Athairam (complainant) and the Bank therefore, exercising its lien withdrew the amount of instalment from the account of guarantor Athairam. The guarantor challenged the authority of the Bank to withdraw amount from his account where his pension was deposited, as pension is not attachable under Section 60(1) (g) of the CPC. 3. Learned Counsel submits that once pension comes to the hand of the pensioner it loses its character as pension and can be attached by any other account. The judgment of this Commission in Firs\t Appeal No. 517/2009, Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Chand Nema, decided on 17-3-2011 have also been cited. In the said judgment this Commission observed :- "The short question that arose was whether the pension amount retains its character as pension amount even after it has come to the hands of the pensioner. A bare reading of Section 60, CPC shows that once the pension is paid and deposited in the account it can be attached, as it no longer retains its character as pension amount. Under these circumstances, the appellant-Bank was entitled to attach and recover from the pension account of the complainant. As per the RRC issued by the Tehsildar the amount attached is Rs. 5,000/- per month." In this view of the matter, it was held that the Bank can recover the amount as RRC from the account of the guarantor. Since there is no embargo on withdrawal of the amount from the guarantor's account after it looses its character from pension the District Forum erred in directing refund of the amount and passing other directions. The order of the District Forum is set-aside and this appeal is allowed but with no order as to the costs.