- (1.) The defendant is an international airliner. The plaintiff is an orthodox Hindu and a strict vegetarian. He was and is still under a dietary restriction due to gastrites. On May 2, 1970 the defendant issued the air-tickets for his round the world tour and he left Calcutta on that day. He had to remain starved from Calcutta to Teheran, from Los Angeles to Tokyo, and from Seol to Hong Kong as he was not served with any vegetarian meals in the aircrafts. His air-ticket from Bucharest to Belgrade was issued by the defendant on L.Z. Airlines which was not operating in that route and he had to go to Belgrade by train. Hence, on the causes of action pleaded in the plaint he has filed this suit claiming Rs. 50,000/- as general damages and Rs. 3,400/- and 30,000/- as special damages. The pleadings of the respective parties will briefly appear from the following issues:- 1. Was there any contract relating to supply of vegetarian meals as alleged in the plaint ? 2. Did the defendant give any assurance regarding the supply of such meals as alleged in the plaint ? 3. Was there any custom, convention and practice of foreign airliners relating to supply of such meals as alleged in the plaint ? 4. Did the defendant fail to supply such meals to the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint ? 5. Is the defendant an agent of L.Z. Airlines and as such has no liability as alleged in paragraph 15 of the Written Statement ? 6. Did the defendant fail to airlift the plaintiff from Bucharest to Belgrade due to Force Majeure as alleged in the Written Statement ? 7. Did the plaintiff travel from Bucharest to Belgrade by train and incur a total expenses of Rs, 3,400/- as alleged in the plaint ? 8. Was there any breach of contract or assurance or duty of care or negligence or misconduct or failure on the part of the defendant as alleged in the plaint ? 9. Was the plaintiff induced or deceived to buy the said air-tickets as alleged in paragraph 18 of the plaint ? 10. Did the plaintiff suffer any inconvenience, discomfort, pain or suffering during the said air-flights and at Bucharest for journeying to Belgrade by rail as alleged in the plaint ? 11. (a) Was the plaintiff taking a business trip to the knowledge of the defendant ? (b) Did the plaintiff fail to keep his business appointments ? 12. Is the claim for damage too remote ? 13. Is the suit barred by Warshaw Convention as alleged in paragraph 30 of the Written Statement ? 14. To what damages and relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled Mr. A. K. Mitter, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, has given up the plaintiff's case on Issues Nos. 9 and 11 including his claim for Rs. 30,000/- as special damages for the loss of business pleaded in the plaint and therefore I will not deal with them.
(2.) Mr. Khaitan and Mr. Sagar, who issued these air tickets, were examined before me. A few documents the air-tickets with endorsements thereon, and the meal-tickets, affixed to some of these air tickets, were tendered and exhibited by consent of the parties. That apart, Mr. Khaitan has also proved the endorsements made by the respective flight persers on the relevant air-tickets and on a flight jacket which was also exhibited and at the time it was tendered no objection was made by Mr. C. R. Dutt the learned Counsel for the defendant, appearing with Mr. P. K. Dutt.
(3.) The meal tickets are hereinafter stated as stickers, and they relate to the vegetarian meals to be served by the defendant to Mr. Khaitan. The endorsements relate to non-supply of such meals to him from Calcutta to Teheran, from Los Angeles to Tokyo, and from Seol to Hong Kong and they also corroborate his evidence that the defendant did not serve him any meals in these three aircrafts during the meal hours.;