PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit- II and thereafter order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 444/2010, the HDFC Bank, who was opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum, has approached this Commission purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. We have heard Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.C. Jha and Mr. Ved Sharma, counsel for the respondent / complainant and have considered their respective submissions. Limited notice was issued to the respondent on the question as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Fora below were justified in granting the kind of relief they have granted to the respondent / complainant in this case by pawning of gold ornaments against a loan, the loan having not been repaid within the specified period. Both the Fora below returned same findings and came to the conclusion that the Bank having disposed of the gold ornament without any due notice to the complainant committed an act of deficiency in service and therefore, they held guilty of the same and directed the petitioner Bank to return the gold equivalent quantum of gold pawned by the complainant to him besides a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would assail the orders passed by the Fora below on the ground that the relief granted is excessive and not commensurate with the kind and extent of loss and injury which can be said to have been suffered by the complainant. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / complainant supports the orders passed by the Fora below and submits that the ornaments pawned by the complainant were very old and had sentimental value for him and, therefore, the compensation is not excessive in any way. 4. Under the directions of this Commission, the petitioner Bank has deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the District Forum, which direction has since been complied with. Having regard to this position and keeping in view the rate of gold during the year 2006 and the present rate of gold and the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner is writ large, we are of the view that it would adequately meet the end of justice, if the total compensation payable to the respondent / complainant is quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the modification that the complainant is entitled for a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, there is no question of restoration of the equivalent quantum of gold to the respondent at this stage. The deposited amount shall be disbursed to the respondent without any security. The petitioner bank shall be entitled to take the refund of the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by it before the State Commission as pre-requisite for filing the appeal.