As per case facts, the appellant, a company, filed a consumer complaint against a bank after investing funds in a fixed deposit. The appellant alleged that the bank fraudulently created ... an overdraft facility against the fixed deposit without their sanction. The bank, however, contended that the deposit was for a commercial purpose to augment profits and that the fixed deposit was pledged for credit facilities, implying the appellant's document was forged. The question arose whether the appellant could be considered a 'consumer' under the relevant Act for such a transaction, and if the complex allegations of fraud and forgery could be resolved in summary consumer proceedings. Finally, the Supreme Court held that while merely earning interest on a deposit doesn't make it commercial, using it to leverage credit facilities for business does. Given the serious allegations of fraud and forgery, which involve complex factual disputes and potentially criminal acts, these cannot be adjudicated in summary consumer proceedings. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable, and the appellant was directed to seek recourse in an appropriate court or forum.