Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The complainant’s case is that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 4.9.1987 and also another sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 2.1.1988. After maturity of the deposits the Opposite Party issued 3 post-dated cheques for Rs. 17,171/-. But these cheques bounced back, therefore, the complaint was filed for the recovery of the entire amount due under the said deposits on the date of maturity with subsequent interest. The Opposite Party took the plea that this is a money transaction and the relationship is that of the creditor and debtor. Relying on the documents filed by the complainant the District Forum held that the complainant deposited the amount and the Opposite Party is liable to pay and so the complainant is a consumer and comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. It, therefore, directed the payment of Rs. 17,171/-with interest thereon from 30.6.89 and Rs. 21,870/- with interest thereon from 31.7.89 and costs of Rs. 1000/- In this appeal it is submitted by the Opposite Party that the complainant is not a consumer, and there was some kind of settlement in O.S. No. 177/91 in the Court of Additional Munsif and II Additional, Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ranebennur, wherein direction was given to the Opposite Party to make re-payment to all its customers as per the scheme enclosed in the said order. The complainant has to work out his claim within the framework under the said order and the complaint is not maintainable.

2. The District Forum found that the complainant is not a party to the proceedings in I.A.. Ill in O.S. No. 177/92, and it is also not known whether the compromise requirements of Order to Rule 8(4) were complied with. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant is bound by that order. It further held that the complainant is a consumer. In this claim, so far as the question, whether she is consumer or not, it is said that a person who makes the deposit, which becomes matured and repays the same with certain rate of interest is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and so can maintain an appeal before the District Forum. So far as the plea that there was settlement in I.A.. Ill in O.S. No. 177/92 is concerned, it is not known, whether the suit is filed in insolvency on behalf of the creditors, from the observation of the District Forum it was filed only by two creditors on their behalf, and it was also not known that the order was passed after giving notice to all the creditors. In the absence of any material to show that the said order is binding on all the creditors and in the absence of the complainant, being one of the creditors, not made a party, it cannot be said that the order relates to proceedings in insolvency and binding on all the creditors. Hence we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

____