1. Mr. B. Ramakrishna, the complainant has approached this Commission against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, tate Commission Tamil Nadu who dismissed the FA/531/2007 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts in this case, are: The complainant was an Savings Bank account holder of HDFC Bank at Silvasa, Gujarat State and later on he shifted to Salem. He gave a letter to OP in second week of February 2004, to transfer his Savings Bank Accounts and LAS (Current Account) to Salem. The Opposite Party transferred the 2 Savings Bank Accounts, within a week. Regarding the LAS Account, the Opposite Party insisted on signing a new contract. But due to inadequate stamp papers, the Opposite Party did not carry out the same. The Complainant arranged to transfer his holdings to HDFC Bank. In the meantime, shares of some companies have been sold from his account. The Complainant LAS account was frozen. The Opposite Party insisted that the Complainant should sign a new agreement. Aggrieved by the conduct of OP, who failed to transfer the LAS Account, and sold certain shares of company, without the consent of the Complainant, alleging the negligence and deficiency in service by the OP, the Complainant filed a complaint seeking direction from the District forum against the OP to transfer his LAS Account, to refund Rs.2.55 lakhs for monetary loss and Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The OPs resisted the liability. The OP submitted that the Complainant approached the OP for an overdraft facility by depositing securities, as collateral security. As per the term in the agreement, Clause 12(ii) the OP disposed of the securities. 4. The District Forum partly allowed his complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and directed the Opposite Party to transfer the Complainant LAS Account, after observing official formalities. 5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, complainant approached the State Commission. 6. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, the complainant approached this Commission, in revision. 7. We have heard arguments of both the parties. The complainant argued the matter, in person. 8. The counsel for OP has submitted that as there was drastic fall in value of shares, the OP had called upon the complainant, vide their letter dated 06.02.2006, to regularize his account, within seven days from the date of the said letter. However, the complainant ignored it and had refrained from making good the shortfall. Therefore, again, 2nd time, on 22.02.2004, the opposite party, in compliance with Clause 12(ii) of the Loan Against Securities Agreement, intimated the complainant that in case, his account is not regularized, then the shares would be sold off by 24.02.2004, but complainant did not heed to it. Thereafter, on 06.03.2004 and 13.03.2004, for the third time, the OP issued telegrams to the complainant, calling upon him to regularize his account, failing which, the shares would be sold by 10.03.2004 and 16.03.2004, respectively. As the complainant failed to respond to all the letters and telegrams sent by the OP, as per the Loan Against Securities Agreement, the shares pledged by the complainant were brought for sale and an average amount of Rs.31,894/- was appropriated towards the shortfall in the complainant account. 9. The Counsel for OP also argued that the complainant had requested transfer of his account to Tamil Nadu from Silvasa (Gujarat state). The OP had insisted on a separate loan transfer agreement stamped as per the stamp duties prevailing in Tamil Nadu State. The complainant, without any reason, refused to execute the said agreement and stubbornly kept insisting on the transfer of accounts. However, opposite party acted on the complainant request and transferred the savings accounts to Salem, but had, time and again brought to the notice of the complainant that unless, a transfer loan agreement was executed, the current loan account could not be transferred. The complainant has, till date, not chosen to sign the said agreement. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the OP had given enough opportunities to the complainant to execute and sign the new agreement, but the complainant failed to do so. To strengthen his argument, the complainant has enclosed his medical records pertaining to cardiac surgery. It is unfortunate that complainant had suffered cardiac aliments, which are common in elderly persons and there are various reasons for that. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from correlating his heart surgery with the issues in this case. Hence, there is no question to enhance the award. 11. We agree with the well-considered order passed by the State Commission and there is no need for any interference by us. 12. This is the case of share transaction; it has no jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. This view has been fortified by a recent judgment of this Commission reported in Vijay Kumar Vs. Indusind Bank, 11 (2012) CPJ 181 (NC) . Therefore, the complainant should seek the remedy through appropriate Forum. In the result, the present revision petition, is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.