The issue of lawful enrichment arises when obligations under a contract are not met due to lack of consideration, barring recovery of claims.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Opposite party of the main Complaint, the Allahabad Bank, Gorakhpur, against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum Gorakhpur in Comp. No. 427, 2012, Mahesh Kumar v. Allahabad Bank and Others. In the said judgment, compensation and other reliefs have been awarded to the plaintiff accepting the Complaint of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff submitted the complaint with the averments that he had been issued an FD by the O.P., Allahabad Bank on 6.7.2009 for a sum of Rs.25,000 for a period of 36 months and its maturity was on 6.7.2012 with the maturity amount Rs. 31,243. On 24.8.2012, the plaintiff applied to the opposite party for the payment of the maturity amount, but the payment was not made despite his repeated requests, being aggrieved he submitted the Complaint. During the proceedings in the complaint, the appellant / opposite - party submitted its written statement where in the bank has put its defense that the appellant has opened a saving bank account number 2835 with the appellant bank. In this account on date 6.7.2009, more than Rs. 25,000 was the balance. On the said date, the complainant applied for issue of a fixed deposit receipt of Rs. 25,000 by debiting the said account. For the transfer of the amount, the complainant submitted a debit voucher of the same amount. As the complainant was a regular customer of the bank, the employees of the bank honoured his credibility and issue the fixed deposit receipt without verifying the fact that whether the account was actually debited for the amount Rs. 25,000 or not. The amount was not actually debited from the savings bank account of the complainant as the debit voucher was not carrying his signatures of the complainant and the column of the signatures was left blank on it. The fixed deposit receipt was actually, void as no consideration was passed for issuing the fixed deposit in the name of the complainant. Though, this receipt was issued owing to negligence on the part of the appellant, yet on the maturity time of the FD, the complainant was not entitled for the maturity amount Rs. 31,243. It is contended by the appellate bank that the Ld. District Consumer Forum without considering the fact that the agreement of fixed deposits was a nullity, has decreed the complaint, therefore, the impugned judgement is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

3. On hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer commission awarded the complaint on the grounds that if the debit voucher dated 6.7.2009 was unsigned, in that case the bank has a duty to inform the complainant and bring to his notice that the debit voucher was not bearing his signatures. The bank could have informed the complainant that the fixed deposit was without consideration as the amount for the same was not debited due to lack of his signatures on the debit voucher and either the fixed deposit would have been cancelled or the amount for the same could have been demanded from the complainant. As no such action was taken by the appellant bank therefore the bank was liable to pay the amount of the fixed deposit on its maturity. For these reasons The District Consumer Commission disbelieved the version of the appellant bank and awarded the fixed deposit amount to the complainant by the impugned judgement. Being aggrieved of the judgement the appellant bank instituted this appeal.

4. The main grounds taken in the memo of the appeal are these that debit voucher submitted by the complainant in the lieu of the Fi