' This is a case filed by the plaintiff against the defendants claiming damages to the extent of Rs,66,94,467. The entire case of the plaintiff revolves around the position that, he was off loaded from Flight No,PK-783 and that was to originate from Islamabad to Moscow and then to London.
The plaintiff was to travel to Moscow which route was changed by the defendants whereby the stop at Moscow was deleted from the specific flight. He states that the route was changed unilaterally, which is the reason that he was not allowed to board the aircraft. He states that subsequently, on the next day, he boarded the Aeroflot after PIA issued a fresh ticket, endorsing Aeroflot thereon. He was flown to Karachi from where he boarded the aircraft and reached Moscow. It is his case that the off loading was unlawful, without authority and, therefore, PIA is liable to damages. It is also his case that the defendants could not change, modify or alter an existing route otherwise than on the condition of force majeur.
2. I had asked Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate for the plaintiff that under what provision are the defendants disentitled to change the existing route. Mr. Khalilur Rehman has referred to clause 9 of the conditions of contract printed on the ticket itself which has been produced by him as Exh.
P.W.4/1. The same is read as under:-- "(9). Carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the passenger and baggage with reasonable dispatch. Times shown in timetable or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract. Carrier may without notice substitute alternate carriers or aircraft, and may alter or omit stopping places whom on the ticket in case of necessity. Schedules are subject to change without notice. Carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections."
3. According to Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman, the stopping places shown on the ticket cannot be changed unless there is a condition of force majeur. He states that the word 'necessity' stated in the above clause shall in fact mean force majeur.
4. I have gone through the headings and law. The position is that no doubt the plaintiff was issued a ticket but, the said ticket as is evident from Exh.B.4/1 bears the initials `RQ', meaning 'on request'.
Mr. Khalilur Rehman states that there was an order by this Court on 18-1-1988 that pre-flight manifest was to be produced alongwith the computer history of the ticket passengers and not produced, the Court shall look into this non-production and its effect. The effect of non-production in respect of a document would be that the plaintiff would be allowed to prove the same by secondary evidence. In the evidence nothing has been shown or proved that the name of the plaintiff was entered in the pre-flight manifest as a confirmed passenger. In the event the passenger is confirmed, the ticket bears a confirmation mark or a sticker is placed thereon.
Exh.D.4/1 which is an admitted document only reads 'Status R.Q.' Such only means that the ticket was issued but with a request from PIA by the defendant, for booking on the specified date. Unless the seat is confirmed, the passenger cannot board the aircraft and he would be treated as on 'chance' at the time of departure'.
5. Mr. Khalilur Rehman states that notwithstanding the above, the changing of route was an unlawful act and it is because of that reason that he was not allowed to board the aircraft. The conditions of contract are duly printed. The passenger seems to be an educated person travelling for business and naturally in such circumstances by working internationally he understands the conditions that may be laid down in contract. The passenger's ticket, otherwise also, is a complete document in itself which has printed on it all conditions which bind both the carrier as also the passenger. Clause 9 is abundantly clear that in the event of necessity the carrier/the defendant could change the route of the stopping places. 'Necessity' is that of the carrier and it is not the necessity of the passenger. The carrier is not liable to prove as to what was the necessity.
Operational reasons are sufficient to show that there was a necessity in changing the route or stopping places, I also held accordingly.
' In view of the fact that the defendants were not bound to carry the passenger to the said stopping place in Moscow and a ticket issued, an alternate carrier was endorsed by PIA at no extra cost and which was availed by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff, therefore, also cannot come forth having duly acted upon and availed the facility given by PIA to him.
7. As I have already held that the defendants were under no obligation and that, they had the right to change a stopping place, and plaintiff having already acted giving another flight to the plaintiff's place of destination, I have also held that the plaintiff did not even have a confirmed ticket. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to allow the suit. There is no evidence as regards any damages which is required to be proved. The suit is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.