P.K. Shamsuddin. President-These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the District Forum, Thrissur in O.P. Nos. 110/ 92, 114/92, 111/92, 112/92, 113/92, 115/92, 116/92, 118/92, 119/92 and 120/92. As common questions arise in these appeals, they are disposed of by a common order

2. The complaint in all these cases is the following:

The first opposite party is a partnership firm of which the other opposite parties are the partners. The first opposite party was engaged in the business of receiving deposits from the public and lending money to the public. The complainants deposited money in the first opposite party’s firm and the first opposite party £inn paid interest to the complainants till November 1985. Thereafter the opposite parties paid Rs. 2000/- in May 1989 and they committed default in payment of interest thereafter. The complainants claimed the amounts deposited together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also compensation.

3. Notices of the complaints were served on the opposite parties. Notice to the first opposite party was returned with endorsement the firm was closed. The opposite parties 2, 3,5,6, 7,8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 appeared and filed versions. Notice to 4th opposite party was returned stating that he expired. Notice to opposite parties 10th and 11th are returned unnerved and reliefs were not pressed against them and they were removed from the party array.

4. In the versions filed by the opposite parties in all these cases it was contended that the first opposite party was not doing banking business and it had no authority to do banking business and that it was lending money to the public under the Money Lenders Act by borrowing money from the public on execution of promissory notes. The allegation that the complainants deposited various amounts in the first opposite party firm on the dates alleged is not true. The promissory notes were not singed by the Chairman and are not valid. The allegation that the interest was paid till November 1985 and same was endorsed on the documents by Managing Partner is not true. The Managing Partner alone had no authority to do so. The payment was endorsed in 1989. So the payment will not save the documents from bar of limitation. The demand was made in 1985 and therefore the claims are barred by limitation. The first Opposite firm is not fanctioning now. The complainants are not consumers and the complaints are not maintainable. The remedy, if any, of the complainants is only to file suit. In the circumstances the complaints are liable to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum on a consideration of the documents and also surrounding circumstances in which the documents were executed and also the manifest intention of the parties carne to the conclusion that though the documents are styled as promissory notes, they are not really promissory notes but only deposits. The District Forum also held that the transaction was in relation to financing and therefore the complaint would come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the complainants are consumers. The District Forum also held the claims are not barred by limitation as the transactions are really deposits and not promissory notes. In that view the District Forum ordered refund of the amounts together with interest at the rate of 12% and cost.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order these appeals have been preferred by the opposite parties.

7. In these appeals, the finding of the District Forum has been challenged by the appellants. It is contended that the transactions are really loans on the• strength of promissory notes and not deposits.

8. It is true that the documents are styled as promissory notes, but not view they are executed only by way of collateral security. The transactions are only deposits and the intention of the parties that is manifest from the surrounding circumstances also was to create deposits. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the National Commissio