JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the appellant. None Appears for the respondent inspite of service of notice through substituted notice. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Rule 29 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland against the impugned judgment and order/decree dated 14.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur, Nagaland in Civil Suit No. 12/2005 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent herein) for Rs.10,00/- lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) as damages. 3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal the facts of the case may be set out as follows: One Babu Manjunath Prasad (since deceased) during his live-time availed a pronote facility of Rs.1.000/- lakh from the appellant bank on condition that the source and mode of repayment would be made from his salary. Accordingly, said Babu Manjunath Prasad executed, signed and delivered various documents in favour of the appellant bank and granted unqualified right to the appellant bank to do all things and needful action as and when required for recovery of the loan amount. In the course of transaction the appellant bank requested Babu Manjunath Prasad to furnish certain documents including his last pay certificate and receipt of LIC Premium payment with its surrendered value; but he failed to furnish the same and consequently the appellant bank recalled the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs.95,666/- and fully liquidated the said amount by withdrawing money from the other saving bank account of Babu Manjunath Prasad lying in the appellant bank. Being dissatisfied with the action of the appellant bank, the said Babu Manjunath Prasad initiated a consumer case against the appellant before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Dimapur (Forum in short) alleging that due to adjustment of the outstanding loan amount by the appellant bank, the plaintiff could not go for further treatment of his eyes. The Forum by its order dated 7.4.2005 dismissed the aforesaid complaint. Thereafter, the said Babu Manjunath Prasad instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 12/2005 against the appellant and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00/- lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) as damages under different heads. During the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, the said Babu Manjunath Prasad expired. The Forum by its order dated 7.4.2005 dismissed the aforesaid complaint. Thereafter, the said Babu Manjunath Prasad instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 12/2005 against the appellant and claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00/- lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) as damages under different heads. During the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit, the said Babu Manjunath Prasad expired. His wife Smt. S. Amenla Jamir (present respondent) filed an application for substitution and she was substituted as a legal heir of the original plaintiff Babu Manjunath Prasad by an order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant bank to file any objection to such substitution. 4. The Civil Suit No. 12/2005 aforesaid was decreed for a sum of Rs.10.00/- lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs) only being damages to be paid by the defendants (present appellant) jointly and severally to the plaintiff by a judgment and order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur. 5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 14.3.2007, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. During the trial, the plaintiff late Babu Manjunath Prasad examined himself as PW 1 and after his death no witness was examined. The present substituted plaintiff was also not examined. The plaintiff submitted some documents which have been exhibited as Ext. P-1 to P-14, which includes doctors prescription and MRD card for treatment of his eyes in the Shankar Deva Netralaya in Guwahati. 7. The defendant examined 3 witnesses and exhibited some documents being Ext. No. D-1 to D-8 submitted by DW No. 1, which has been reaffirmed by DW 2 and DW 3, which includes articles of agreement for sanctioning the loan to the deceased loanee and Ext. D-4, loan application form duly filled up and signed by the loanee. 8. Mr. BN Sarmah, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the decree of Rs.10.00/- lakhs as damages to be paid by the defendant jointly and severally to the plaintiff was made by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur without any finding based on record that Babu Manjunath Prasad, the loanee could not avail medical treatment of his eyes due to liquidation of loan from his other account in the Bank. Mr. Mr. Sarmah submits that the plaintiff did not file any document in support of the medical expenditure incurred by him, inasmuch as no bill for purchase of medicines for treatment of his eyes and payment made to the hospital have been furnished. Except the doctor's prescription and the MRD Card, according to Mr. Sharmah, no document was filed and exhibited before the trial Court for the purpose of showing that he incurred a huge expenditure to the tune or Rs.10.00/- lakhs and for that purpose to claim the damages as decreed by the learned trial Court. 9. The further submission of Mr. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff late Babu Manjunath Prasad made an application in prescribed form for obtaining loan (Ext. P-2) and in the said form, Rules relating to loan, it is provided under condition No. B that "Bank has a right to adjust the whole or part of the amount due to the Bank from the funds payable to the applicant on whatever A/c, and the deceased plaintiff agreed to the said condition and signed the same on 25.11.2002. An Articles of Agreement was also signed between the Bank and the deceased plaintiff late Babu Manjunath Prasad on 10.12.2002 and the said Articles of Agreement incorporates Clause 4 which provides that "it shall not be necessary for the bank to issue any notice or make any demand for any payment due by the borrower." In the said Articles of Agreement, it has been provided in Clause 8 that" the borrower shall furnish the bank with all such information as the bank may reasonably require for the bank's satisfaction as to due compliance with the terms of this agreement and all such periodical reports and information at such time, in such form and containing such particulars as bank may call, for the purpose of ascertaining the results of the utilization of the loan". The aforesaid clauses in the Articles of Agreement and also the application form, according to Mr. Sarmah, give unqualified right to the appellant Bank to liquidate the loan from the other account of the borrower lying with the bank as a measure of recovery of the loan amount. 10. In the pleadings according to Mr. The aforesaid clauses in the Articles of Agreement and also the application form, according to Mr. Sarmah, give unqualified right to the appellant Bank to liquidate the loan from the other account of the borrower lying with the bank as a measure of recovery of the loan amount. 10. In the pleadings according to Mr. Sarmah, learned Counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff has not denied the fact of obtaining loan from the appellant bank and the right of the bank for recovery of the loan amount from the plaintiff. The suit has been instituted, as it appears from the prayer made, for decree of Rs.10.00/- lakhs as compensation for damages only and not for refund of the adjusted amount byway of liquidation from the other account of the deceased plaintiff. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the documents filed by the plaintiff and the defendants exhibited in the learned trial Court. 12. Since there is no prayer in the plaint for refund of the adjusted amount i.e. Rs.95,666/- and no grievance has been made against the action taken by the appellant bank, the only question remains for adjudication is/was whether the plaintiff is/was entitled to decree of damages to the extent of Rs.10.00/- lakhs as decreed by the learned trial Court. 13. From the record, it is found that although the plaintiff alleged that due to liquidation of his loan amount by way of adjustment from his other account, he could not avail medical treatment of his eyes, he did not file any documents like physical disablement certificate, medical certificate of resultant death, document for hospitalisation and treatment in the hospital and any receipt for payment of bills paid towards meeting the medical expenditures. The plaintiff did not examine any doctor or attending physical or Eye Specialist to substantiate his claim that he was under medical treatment. Without any documentary or oral evidence, the learned trial Court came to the finding that the plaintiff due to shortage of money could not undergo his eye operation as advised by the medical consultant and consequently his left eye vision decreased and placed him into distress condition and ultimate demise for which defendants are liable for compensation of Rs.10.00/- lakhs. This finding of the learned trial Court is perverse as no evidence has been led by the plaintiff. This finding of the learned trial Court is perverse as no evidence has been led by the plaintiff. No other reasons have been recorded by the learned trial Court justifying the decree for payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs as damages to the plaintiff. 14. Having found that the finding of the learned trial Court is based on no documents and evidence supporting the claim of damages, I hold that the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable under the law and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. Appeal stands allowed; but without any order as to cost. Appeal allowed.