P L D 2004 Karachi 439 (PLP)

"(r) A, a ship-owner, contracts with B to convey him from [Karachi] to Sydney in A's ship, sailing on the first day of January, and B pays to A, by way of deposit, one-half his passage-money. The ship does not sail on the first of January, and B. after being, in consequence detained in Karachi for some time and thereby put to some expense, proceeds to Sydney in another vessel, and, in consequence, arriving too late in Sydney loses a sum of money. A is liable to repay to B his-deposit with interest, and to expense to which he is put by his detention in Karachi and the excess, if any, of the passage money paid for the second ship over that agreed upon for the first, but not the sum of money which B lost by arriving in. Sydney too late. (Underlined for emphasis) In the case reported as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (CLC 1996 627), this Court maintained the judgments of two Courts below whereby refund of unutilized flight ticket was granted. In action for damages either general or special, burden to prove is always on the plaintiff. I propose to examine first, the evidence produced by the Plaintiff in support of his claim for special or pecuniary loss and damages. Plaintiff as discussed above, was suffering from `trigeminal neuralgia'. Evidence that has come on record tends to shows that he had an appointment with Dr. Earnest Methew on 16-4-99. On account of denied boarding, he could not undertake journey to Boston, America as such could not get treatment on the given date and time. Since his disease aggravated as an urgent measure, Plaintiff's son Irfan had to travel on 18th April, 1999 for making alternate arrangement in USA and since Dr. Earnest Methew was not available for about another month. The Plaintiff had to undertake travel with his wife as an attendant for treatment at New York. Plaintiff had to undergo the treatment at New York, USA before he could receive final consultation and treatment with Dr. Earnest Methew in Boston, USA on 24-5-1999. Claim of the Plaintiff on this issue was not controverted. There remains no doubt that the Plaintiff had suffered loss on account of denied boarding. As to the quantum of damages or loss, it may be observed that no wrong is without redress. Plaintiff has produced following statement of claim as Ex. P/32: STATEMENT OF EXPENSES ADDITIONALLY INCURRED BY DR. HAROON AHMED DUE TO DENIED BOARDING. 1 Air ticket of Mrs. Anis Haroon Rs.3,500 2 Expenses on stay of three persons in New York from 22nd April to 10th May 1999 Stayed as paying guest $100 per person per day $300x20 $6,000 Rs.3,00,000 3 Miscellaneous Travelling expenses $5,000 Rs.2,50,000 4 various consultation at Newyork $ 1,500 Rs.75,000 5 Procedure and hospital expenses $10,000 Rs.50,000 6 Travel to Chicago and back to Newyork $1,000 Rs.50,000 7 Travel to Boston for consultation with Dr. Methews $500 Rs.25,000 8 Week stay at Boston $2,000 Rs.1,00,000 9 Consultation and other expenses $500 Rs.25,000 10 Travel back to New York for post-procedure checkup $500 Rs.25,000 11 Week stay at New York $2,100 Rs.1,05,000 12 Loss of professional medical practice for one month. Rs.1,00,000 Now examining tile evidence produced in support of the expenses claimed above. As regard ticket of Mrs. Anis Haroon, Plaintiff produced copy of the Ticket as ex. P/10 and voucher from the travel agency for Rs.85,

000. It was not disputed that she did not travel as an attendant to the Plaintiff. Item No.2 relates to expenses for the stay in New York in the sum of US$ 6,000, no voucher or bill for the lodging and boarding were produced, such claim, in absence of any evidence cannot be allowed. Third head of account is for miscellaneous traveling expense, in the sum of US$ 5.000 for almost 20 days stay. Such claim appears to be overstated in this head I allow only US$ 1,

000. Under 4th head of account, Plaintiff claimed US$ 1,500 on account of various consultation at New York, but the learned counsel submitted that, in fact Plaintiff had spent US$ 6,

928. Evidence in support of such claim was Ex.P/21 for US $ 1378.28 Ex.P/22 for US $ 550.64 Ex.P/23 for US $ 2350.00 Ex.P/24 for US $ 2350.00 Ex.P/25 for US$ 300.00 Total

US $ 6928.00 Said invoices support claim, it were not challenged, claim is therefore allowed. Under 5th head of account i.e. Procedure and hospitalization, a receipt/invoice of `Our Lady of Mercy Hospital Center, New York was produced as Exh.P/29 for US $ 10,000.00. The invoice or treatment was not disputed. It is accordingly allowed. The expenses shown at serial number 5 to 17 are the expenses in respect of treatment given by Dr. Methew. When Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate for the Plaintiff was confronted that such treatment and expense the Plaintiff was otherwise bound to incur, he fairly conceded that said claim might be kept out of consideration. Under circumstances the expenses incurred by the plaintiff on treatment given by Dr. Methew are disallowed. As regard last item i.e. loss of professional medical practice for one month. Claim for the loss of practice cannot be allowed for the reason firstly that, no evidence was produced to show what was the income of the Plaintiff that he lost. Secondly, on the own showing of the Plaintiff, he was suffering from ailment he could not have carried out his practice during period of his ailment. There was no evidence that had he received the treatment in time he could have resumed his work early. Looking at the evidence produced, it appears that the Plaintiff incurred additional expense for the travel of his wife Mrs. Anisa Haroon, in the Sum of Rs.85,000 who accompanied him as an attendant: her name appears in number of medical invoice. A sum of Rs.79,335 on account of plaintiffs ticket and Rs.79,335 on account of air fare of his son Irfan Haroon and US $17,928 on account of medical treatment before he could get treatment from Dr. Methew. Total claim in Pak amount is Rs.2,43,670 plus expenses in America comes to US $17,928.00 to which the plaintiff is entitled on account of special dam ages/pecuniary loss he ' actual suffered. Adverting to non-pecuniary loss plaintiffs case is that he is al doctor and a senior Professor of Psychiatry, renowned nationally and internationally for his philanthropic work. Plaintiff claimed to be suffering from trigeminal pain had sought an appointment with Dr. Methew for 16-4-1999, was booked through Emirates for 14-4-1999, when reported at the check-in counter was declined boarding unjustly for, extraneous consideration. His condition aggravated and he had to seek alternate medical treatment. The incident was also reported in widely circulated English Daily Dawn. While deciding Issue No.2 it was held that the plaintiff and his son were denied boarding, not for want of; 72-hours prior confirmation but for extraneous consideration. The liability of a wrongdoer to compensate the injured is correlated to the duty he owes to others and where failure has occurred in performance or discharge of such duty or obligation or where for his act of omission and commission, other suffers. In the instant case, the ticket with confirmed reservation was issued, International Contract of Carriage by air came into existence. When a confirmed ticket is issued it imposed a duty and obligation on the air carrier to carry the holder of a ticket .to the contracted destination on the date and time as was specified therein. A carrier failing in its obligation to carry a holder of valid and confirmed ticket, without any just cause exposes himself to all the perile and consequence, may it be under the Warsaw Convention, law of the land or contract of carriage, or even tort as the case may be. Any person who is denied boarding, without just cause is bound to suffer financial loss besides mental stress, agony, pain and frustration and lot of inconvenience and humiliation. In the instant case, on account of denied boarding, the Plaintiff who was a sick person and had to obtain treatment abroad was certainly to suffer mental agony, distress and pain besides inconvenience. Such sufferings are the direct result of unjust denial and refusal to carry the plaintiff by the defendant No.2. Where such suffering is a direct result of the act of omission or commission of wrongdoer and for failure to perform obligation under an international contract of carriage by at, the one who is denied boarding and is wronged is entitled to be compensated. In a case reported as Pakistan Airlines Corporation 1996 CLC 627 also the plaintiff therein claimed refund of unutilized flight ticket and damages on account of mental torture and agony together with loss of business. This Court while repelling the arguments of the P.I.A. that, there was no physical injury to go with the plaintiffs avowed shock, torture and agony, held that "Such factor, at best may be reckoned to aggravate and compound the claim and to affect the quantum of damages rather its bare entitlement". As to what should be the compensation in such cases, guidance is drawn from the observation made in the case of Muhammad Ishaq PLD 1996 SC 737, at page 745 it was held: "There is no yardstick to define principle for assessing damage in such case. The damage is meant to compensate a party who suffers an injury. It may be bodily injury, loss of reputation, business and also mental shock and suffering. So far nervous shock is concerned it depends upon the evidence produced to prove the nature extent and magnitude of such suffering, but even on that basis usually it becomes difficult to assess a fair compensation and in those circumstances it is the discretion of the Judge who may on facts of the case and considering how far the society would deem it to be fair sum, determine the amount to be awarded to a person who has suffered such damages. The conscience of the Court should be satisfied that the damages awarded, if not completely would sufficiently compensate the aggrieved person." Keeping in view the condition of the Plaintiff, who was a patient of trigeminal neuralgia on account of aggravation of his ailment and non availability of treatment in Pakistan, had appointment in U.S.A., was denied boarding his suffering and pain can very well be imagined. He had to wait for one month before he could seek treatment from Dr. Methew. In between, he had to suffer pain and undergo treatment from other doctor. Keeping in view, the status, position and medical condition of the plaintiff, in sight, in my opinion a sum of US $ 500 per day for 30 days, would be a reasonable and fair compensation for denied boarding and breach of international contract 4 carriage by air. ISSUE No.5: Now adverting to more onerous task of determining firstly the liability if any of the air carraer in case of denied boarding and secondly as to which of the carrier could be held liable in case where more than one carrier is involved in contract of carriage. Adverting to first aspect of the issue, liability of carrier as, regards the passenger under the Convention, as adopted through Act of 1966, is limited to certain specified incidence, occurrence or act of omission and commission on the part of carrier or their servants and agents. Statutory liability of a carrier, extends to damage that may be sustained in the event of (i) death, (ii) wounding or (iii) any other bodily injury suffered, by the passenger, provided specified incidence, occurrence or happening took place on board of the aircraft or in the course of any of the operation of embarkation or disembarkation and for the (iv) damages sustained by the delay in carriage by air of the passenger (See rules 17(1) & 19). The specified incidence, occurrence or happening may be referred to as "statutory wrong" which entails "statutory liability" in term of rule 22 up to a maximum limit of 250,000 Franc. However, where it is proved that, damage has occasioned from the act of omission either of the carrier or, of his servants or agents done with intent to cause damage, or recklessly with knowledge that damage would probably result, then limit of liability could not be availed. An air carrier may seek exoneration from liability under the Convention, or putting in other words, under the Convention an air carrier may avail of following: "Statutory defence" against any claim arising out of "statutory wrong". (1) The carrier and his servants or agents have taken all necessary) measure to avoid the damages or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measure, (Rules 20 & 25-A) (2) Carrier may be relieved or absolved of the liability or even it) may claim mitigation in case negligence or the contributory negligence on the part of injured person, as the case may be is proved, (Rule 21). (3) Where the claim of damages is not brought within 2 years from, the date of cause of action as specified in Rule 29. (4) In case where Carriage is to be performed by various successive carriers, then the carrier who accepts the passenger or baggage or goods may only be liable and other carrier may seek discharge unless otherwise provided in the contract of carriage, [Rule 30(2)]. Burden to prove that such statutory defence or protection is attracted is always on the carrier. In the instant case the Defendant No.2 did not claim protection of any of the above statutory defences, but the Defendant No.1 indeed took refuge and protection of Rule 30(2). As regard the liability towards the passenger, the First Schedule of the Act of 1966, determines the question of liability and the Second Schedule, the person by whom and to whom the liability is owned. The provisions of the Convention as adopted by the High Contracting State tend to ensure that the liability of carrier is governed by the terms of the Convention as adopted and reflected in municipal laws of each High Contracting parties (i.e. Ratifying State). In view of such adoption of convention by Pakistan, in terms of Rule 22, to the First Schedule, limit of financial liability for each passenger in respect of "statutory wrong" may extend to a sum of 2,50,000 Francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger shay agree to a higher limit of liability. Conversly however is not true, no contract to relieve the carrier of the liability or that tends to fix lower liability can be sustained. The carrier even by contract cannot exclude or limit its liability, if the damage is caused by the wilful misconduct or by such default as is, in the opinion of the Court, equivalent to wilful misconduct either on the part of the carrier or any of his servants or agents provided the servant or the agent did such act within the scope of employment or agency as the case may be. There is no reason why the defence akin to the statutory defence, as discussed above, could be availed of in cases where the wrong could not be classified strictly within the ambit of "statutory wrong" as defined under the Convention. The closest of the liability that may clinch on the air carrier, in the instant case is delay. Delay within the contemplation of the Convention is provided for in Rule 19 of the Act of 1966, which runs as follows: "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage of passenger, luggage or goods." From bare reading of above, it implies that consequence for the delay follows, where the carrier though carried the passenger, luggage or goods contracted but the delay occurred in such exercise of carriage by air. Above quoted Rule does not contemplate the delay on account of denied boarding or failure of the carrier to carry the passenger, luggage or goods at all. In every contract of carriage by air, the carrier undertakes to carry the passenger and baggage on scheduled time and flight and to use its best effort to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch and care. Subject to the condition that the passenger carries and holds all valid traveling documents permits or visa, ticket and arrives and reports at the check-in counter well in time to complete the departure procedure. Delay implies slowing down or consuming more than ordinarily and normally required time to reach at the destination in the course of carriage by air. By delay in terms of Rule 19 ibid it implies that the passenger baggage or goods were on board and the carrier failed to reach the destination within reasonable period of scheduled time or arrived late at the contracted destination, point or landed at some other destination causing delay to the passenger to reach at the contracted destination may it be through same air carrier or alternate air carrier. The carrier could also be held liable for delay caused by the deliberate act of its employees, servants agents Examining instant case closely, it becomes clear that it is not a case where delay occasioned during the course of carriage by air of the passenger, luggage or goods. As statutory liability of delay could one foisted on the carrier when it carries the passenger, baggage or goods and reaches at the destination much beyond the reasonable scheduled time without any just and lawful excuse and that such delay had occasioned in the course of carriage operation. In the instant case the plaintiff and son were denied boarding, despite having valid, traveling document including the confirmed reservation on Emirates Airlines for 14-4-1999. This is a clear-cut case of breach of contract. Such act of omission arid failure to perform the contract of carriage by air does not squarely fall within the contemplation of the Convention. From the scheme of the Convention as well as the Act of 1966, it appears that cases of breach of contract of the kind in hand are not contemplated therein. Thus it does not mean that where a wrong done, breach committed or injury inflicted is not within the contemplation of the Convention and the Act of 1966, the; carrier is absolved of any liability, aftermath or consequence Applying age aid legal maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" (where there is right there is remedy). As to "statutory wrong" the Convention provides complete code as to rights and liabilities both of the cattier a" the passenger. However, any wrong, breach or mischief not 'within the contemplation of the Convention or the Act of 1966, same could be redressed either tinder law governing contract, in case of Pakistan under the Contract Act, 1872, or general law or even in appropriate cases under Trot. This view finds support from the case reported as Pakistan Airlines Corporation 1996 CLC

627. This Court maintained award of damages on account of breach of contract of carriage for the fault of clerk of PIA who had torn the relevant coupon of the ticket and the passenger was left in lurch in another High Contracting State (India). In a case from American jurisdiction cited by Mr. Akhtar Hussain cited as `Ralph Nader v. Allegheny Airlines Inc'. 426 US 290, plaintiff in said case, denied boarding, declined to accept `denied boarding compensation' fixed under regulations of Civil Aeronautics Board and instead brought suit in US District Court asserting in addition to statutory cause of action under the Federal Aviation Act as well, a common lads tort action based on fraudulent misrepresentation arising from airline's alleged failure to inform him in advance of its deliberate overbooking practices District Court allowed compensatory and punitive damages. The U.S. Courts of Appeal reversed the finding, holding that common law tort, action is not available and sent the matter to the Board for determination whether the non-disclosure of overbooking is within the preview of Federal Aviation Act. On Certiorari the U.S. Supreme Court 'expressed unanimous view, that the plaintiff's common low action cannot be stayed pending reference to the Board. Where a carrier, his servant or agent disembarks a passenger or wrongfully denies him to board or embark, as happened in the instant case, the air carrier could be held liable for failure to carry the passenger by air at all and so also consequences for the delay arising therefrom. I The air carrier as a rule will be liable to refund the fare and so also damages and any incidental loss or expense and excess amount of fare, if any, paid to another carrier to reach the destination. (See section 73 of the Contract Act, particularly illustration [r] thereto). As discussed above, the Convention is silent, as regard liability Pair carrier for the breach of contract of carriage. By this, it does not mean that, air carrier is rendered absolved of all the liability in cases of breach of contract, occurrence of any wrong other than "statutory wrong," such would be anomalous position, there is no wrong without a remedy. Where any injury is caused or loss occurs during the course of or in furtherance of carriage by air that may not be within the contemplation of Convention, a passenger, consignee or any other person will always have a remedy against the carrier. Where statutory liability of air carrier under the Convention terminates; realm of general law governing contractual obligation begins or where no remedy under general law of contract is available remedy under tort may be extended provided a case is made out. In my humble opinion the act of the Defendant No-2 denying, boarding to the Plaintiff and his son is out of the purview of the "statutory wrong" therefore the statutory liability would not clinch on the carrier. As observed above, this does not mean that Plaintiff is rendered helpless, general law will come to his rescue. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure acknowledges inherent right of a person to bring any suit of civil nature, and the Civil Court may take cognizance of all such cases unless expressly or impliedly barred. In the instant case no implied or express bar was pleaded. The implied bar that could be inferred may be restricted only to the claim arising out of "statutory wrong," for which Convention is a complete code and, not otherwise. As observed above, case of the Plaintiff falls out of the ambit of "statutory wrong" nevertheless, carrier is liable for the wrong under the contract of carriage and general law of land. After examining liability statutory and otherwise of the air carrier generally under the scheme of the Convention Act of 1966 and general law. I propose to examine the liability of air carrier in case of, international carriage by air, where more than one carrier are involved in the carriage by air operation. Such prospective is contemplated under the Convention and Act of 1966. Provision regulating international carriage by successive carrier is contained in Rule 1(4) and Rule 30, for the benefit of appreciation same runs as follows:-- Rule 1(4).--Carriage to be performed by several successive air carrier is deemed for the purposes of these rules, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it does not lose its international character merely because one contract or series of contract is performed entirely within the territory of the same State. Rule 30.--(1) In the case of carriage to be performed by various successive carriers and falling within the definition set out in sub-rule (4) of rule 1, each carrier who accepts passengers, baggage or goods is subjected to the rules set out in this Schedule, and is deemed to be one of the contracting parties to the contract of carriage insofar as the contract deals with that part of the carriage which is performed under his supervision. (2) In the case of carriage of this nature, the passenger or his representative can take action only against the carrier who performed the carriage during which the accident or the delay occurred, save in the case where, by express agreement, the first carrier has assumed liability for the whole journey. (3) As regard baggage or goods, the passenger or consignor will have a right of action against the first carrier, and the passenger or consignee who is entitled to delivery will have right of action against the last carrier, and further, each may take action against the carrier who performed the carriage during which the destruction loss, damage or delay took place. These carriers will be jointly and severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee. In terms of the Convention and Act of 1966, more than one air carrier could perform a single International Carriage by air operation. Such carriage is referred to as carriage by successive air carrier. In cases where single air carriage contract is to be performed by more than one air carrier and any passenger who suffers a wrong in the course of air carriage may initiate action only against the air carrier who was required to perform the carriage but failed to perform or against the carrier who performed the carriage during which, the statutory wrong (i.e. accident, injury or the delay occurred). The liability may be limited to a carrier issuing the ticket for the entire contracted journey spread over various destinations in different countries and is required to be performed by different carriers, provided issuing carrier took upon himself the liability for the whole journey. In addition to above provisions of the Convention and Act of 1966, all the international air carriers who operate air transportation services, including the Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are also member parties and signatories to the "IATA Inter-airline Traffic Agreement-Passenger" Fxh.D-1/6. This agreement, to which the Defendants Nos.1 and 2 are also party, incorporates Inter-airline liability towards each airline with reference to the passenger, baggage and goods. The Agreement provides that each member of IATA may sell air transportation over the routes of the other. To appreciate and understand the liability of air carrier who could be held liable in case whereof successive air carriers are involved, it would be beneficial to browse through relevant clauses: Article 1-Definiation: 1.1 Airline Carrying" is a party hereto over whose routes a and his .baggage are transported or are to be 1.3 "Airline, Issuing" is a party thereto which issues a ticket or miscellaneous charges order for transportation over the routes of another party (ies) to this agreement. 1.21 "Passenger" is a person to whom a ticket covering through transportation over the service of two or more parties hereto has been issued. 5.2.2. The carrying airline, as principal, indemnifies the issuing airline, including its officers, employees or agents, as agent, from and against all claims, demands, costs, expenses and liabilities arising from the carrying airline's provision of or failure to provide carriage pursuant to any ticket or MCO properly issued, completed or delivered by the issuing airline, provided however, no such indemnity shall apply in the event of termination of the issuing airline's rights hereunder due to said airline's involvement in proceedings declaring it insolvent, bankrupt or seeking relief under applicable bankruptcy or insolvency laws, pursuant to 10.4.2. hereof. 7.1 Capacity of issuing Airlines.--On issuing or completing tickets or MCOs for transportation over the routes of other parties hereto, the issuing airline shall be deemed to act only as an Agent of the carrying airline(s). In the instant case the condition No.5 of the contract that was incorporated on the ticket issued by the British Airways for the carriage of the plaintiff and his son over Karachi-Dubai Sector reads as follows, "An air carrier issuing a ticket for the carriage over the line of another air carrier does so only as an agent". Above condition on the ticket is in consonance with Article 7.1 of the Inter-airline Agreement, adopted through Resolution 780 as reproduced above. The condition is not found to be in derogation with the provisions of Rules 1(4) and 30 as reproduced above. I do not see any reason not to apply tae principle of liability or apportionment of liability of successive carrier in terms of Rules 1(4) and 30 of the Convention in cases of wrong that is not within the contemplation Convention, as is in this case of denied boarding. In a claim founded on the ground of breach of contract or denied boarding, the rights and obligations of the parties depend on the terms of contracts. Even otherwise both the British Airways as well as Emirates Airlines are party to Resolution 780 which binds them contractually. Once issuing air carrier issue a ticket for the carriage over the line of another air carrier, it does so only as an agent of the carrying airline, who for all intent and purposes is the Principal who is required to perform the contract of carriage. It then becomes a contractual obligation of Carrying/Principal air carrier to honour the commitment under the contract of carriage, use reasonable care to carry the passenger without unreasonable delay. In terms of contractual obligations under the Resolution 780, the condition No.5, of the Ticket, as well under section 226 of the Contract Act, the Emirates Airlines being a principal carrier was obliged to honour the contract of carriage entered on its behalf by the British Airways. It is the Emirates Airlines that failed to perform and discharge their obligation under its contract, are liable for the consequences and to make good the loss suffered by the Plaintiff on account of unjustified denied boarding as determined while deciding Issue No.4 above. While deciding Issue Nc.5 reliance was placed on the IATA -Inter-airline Agreement-Passenger, Exh.D-1/6. It was observed that the British Airways acted as an agent for the Emirates Airlines, in terms o Article 5.2.2 thereof. Therefore, the carrying airline, as principal, is obliged to indemnify the issuing airline or agents which includes travel agents, from and against all claims, demands, costs, expenses and liabilities arising from the carrying airline's failure to provide carriage pursuant to any ticket or MCO properly issued, completed or delivered by the issuing airline. Indemnity is not available to the issuing Airline in case where the agency of the issuing airline stands terminated due to said airline's involvement in proceedings declaring it insolvent, bankrupt or seeking relief under applicable bankruptcy or insolvency laws, pursuant to Article 30.4.2 of the Inter-airline Agreement. No such incapacity as regard the defendant No. 1 was pleaded nor there is any material to infer the same. Even in terms of section 222 of the Contract Act, Principal i.e. the Emirates Airlines would have been liable to indemnify the Agent i.e. British Airways against the consequences of all the lawful acts done during the course of the agency. It is no body's case that the British Airways had acted without or beyond the authority or acted negligently or fraudulently. In view of the foregoing, suit is decreed as against the Defendant No.2, the Emirates Airlines in the following sum. (1) Reimbursement of fare of plaintiffs wife Mrs. Anisa Haroon, in the sum of Rs.85,000, A sum of Rs.79,335 on account of plaintiffs ticket and Rs.79,335 on account of air fare of his son Irfan Haroon, total claim in Par amount is Rs.2,43,670. (2) Plus expenses incurred in actual in America that comes to US$17,928 on account of medical treatment before he could get treatment from Dr. Methew, on account of special damages/pecuniary loss. (3) Plus General damages or non-pecuniary, loss on account of physical and mental agonies humiliation and defamation are awarded in the sum of US $ 500 per day for 30 days. Suit stands decree in the sums above with equalizer at the rate of 6% from the date of institution of suit till realization together with cost as against the defendant No. 2, the Emirates Airlines, whereas suit is dismissed as against the defendants Nos. 1, 3 and

4. M.B.A./H-15/K Suit decreed.