P L D 1999 Lahore 15 (PLP)

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given anxious thoughts to the arguments addressed at the Bar.

4. Admittedly Pakistan has given effect to the Convention concerning international carriage by air known as "The Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague, 1955" by Act (IX of 1966) which is called the "Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act, 1966". It is pertinent to refer to some of the provisions of this Act. Section 22(2)(a) reads as under:‑‑ "In the carriage of registered baggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of two hundred and fifty frances per kilogram, unless the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the passenger's or consignor's actual interest in delivery at destination. " Subsections (3) and (4) of the afore‑referred section read as under:‑‑ "(3) As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of the carrier is limited to five thousand frances per passenger." (4) The limits prescribed in this rule shall not prevent the Court frorh awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the Court costs and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding Court costs and other expenses of the litigation does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence causing the damages, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later.' Section 28 of the said Act reads as under:‑‑ "An action for damages must be brought at the option of the plaintiff either before the Court having jurisdiction where the carrier is ordinarily resident, or has his principal place of business, or has an establishment by which the contract has been made or before the Court having jurisdiction at the place of destination."

5. On all P.I.A. tickets the conditions of contract are mentioned and the last condition of the ticket which is appended with the written reply is as under:‑‑ Notice of baggage liability limitations ‑‑Liability for loss, delay, or damages to baggage is limited unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid. For most international travel (including domestic portions of international journey) the liability limit is approximately U.S. $9.07 per pound (U.S.$20.00 per kilo) for checked baggage and U.S.$400 per passenger for unchecked baggage. For travel wholly between U.S. points, Federal rules require any limit on an airline's baggage liability to be at lease U.S.$1,250 per passenger. Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of articles. Some carriers assume no liability for fragile, valuable or perishable articles. Further information may be obtained from the carrier. " .

6. Admittedly, the petitioner's bag which has been lost was booked at the New York Airport. The value of the articles contained in the said bag were neither declared at the New York Airport nor at the Lahore Airport when the complaint was lodged about the loss of bag. Even in this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has given no details of the articles in bag for which the damages are being claimed by her. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that it would be for the Court of plenary jurisdiction A i.e. the Civil Court to decide the matter after credible evidence is produced about the articles and the value of those articles contained in the lost bag, has force. Under section 28 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1966 the petitioner has to file a suit in the concerned Court. The petitioner, through this Constitutional petition, cannot be awarded damages claimed as the said exercise would of necessity entail inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. A. A./D‑19/L Petition dismissed.