Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is averred that the defendant no.2 being proprietor of defendant no.1 has a current account in the name of the defendant no.1 and is jointly operating the same. It is alleged that without sufficient balance in the account, the defendants withdrew an amount of Rs. 50,000/­ on 20.10.2008 and another sum of Rs.50,000/­ on 15.01.2009 and as the defendants were good customers and dealing with the plaintiff bank for a longtime, the debit was not made immediately but when it was so made and it was found that the defendant did not have sufficient balance, the plaintiff bank created a temporary overdraft facility for the withdrawn amount.

8. PW1 has deposed on similar lines as the plaint in respect of withdrawal being made without sufficient balance and temporary overdraft facility having been made as also in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,17,970.44/­ being outstanding against the defendant as per the statement of account being maintained by the plaintiff bank.

9. Since the defendant was proceeded ex­parte, they failed to defend their case or put forth any defence. No rebuttal has come against the claims of the plaintiff bank. The oral testimony of PW1 and the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 as also Mark A, Mark B and Mark B1 have not been traversed and the testimony of PW1 goes un­rebutted and unchallenged. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the unrebutted and uncontroverted evidence led by the plaintiff. However, it has not been proved that the defendant agreed to pay the claimed interest on temporary overdraft facility as well and hence the interest as claimed by the plaintiff appears to be exorbitant being penal in nature and interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is awarded the prevailing bank's rate of interest.