Compensation Claim For Passengers Who Were Not Taken On Plane Because The Airline Sold More Than One Ticket

11 Aug Compensation Claim For Passengers Who Were Not Taken On Plane Because The Airline Sold More Than One Ticket

Posted at 22:45h in General by Aşıkoğlu Law Office 0 Comments

0 Likes

<!– wp:themify-builder/canvas /–>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
T.C. Supreme Court 11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL NO: 2015/11487, DECISION NO: 2016/6313 Summary: Acting defendant; the flight flight that the plaintiff claims to be victimized … is a flight operated by airlines and under the current agreement … the client company sells tickets, the plaintiff claims do not reflect the truth, the client … sells at the rate of the number of seats given by the airlines for the respective flight, the information that the airline has no place in the fare class allocated to the, …’s passengers you should give the client information about the status of the plaintiff partnership, while his neglect of these matters, which is out of control despite the efforts to prevent his client’s victimization of the delay of the delay by the court house in Luleå,claim, defense, expert reports, witness statements, and all file according to the scope, was carried out on 09.01.2014 07.01.2014 the plaintiff committed after 2 days from date of carrying, for this reason, the claimant is entitled to a penalty qualified compensation of TL 1.188, 40 for 400-Euro damages in accordance with the provisions of the regulation issued in accordance with the EU directive and in force as of 01.01.2012, the defendant is also charged 350-SEK by the company … which is the first carrier in the, it was decided to accept and reject the case partly on the grounds that it was not possible to miss a special event which could not be compensated due to the delay of two days because the plaintiff was not allowed to move on the grounds of occupancy,that the plaintiff was not alone, that he was with his daughter-in-law and listened as a witness….
<!– /wp:paragraph –>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
The attorney of the plaintiff requested moral compensation by informing him that his clients were not taken to the plane because of the defendant’s “…” application, so he left the airport after waiting at the airport for a while and was stranded in a country he did not know for 2 days. The fact that the plaintiff was not taken on board due to the defendant selling extra tickets is non-negotiable as far as the scope of the file is concerned. In the concrete case, the issue that needs to be discussed is whether the passengers who were not taken on board because of the excess ticket sale of the defendant airline can claim for moral compensation. …
<!– /wp:paragraph –>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
In this case, in the light of the principles and e…s described above, it is necessary to take into account that the moral damage of the plaintiff was caused by not being taken to the plane because of the application of “…” and, if necessary, to be given an appropriate moral compensation for the benefit of the plaintiff by considering the offer, such as the…
<!– /wp:paragraph –>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
Decision:
<!– /wp:paragraph –>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
COURT :COMMERCIAL COURT
<!– /wp:paragraph –>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
In the case seen between the parties … the decision of the Court of First Instance dated 08/06/2015 and numbered 2014/459-2015/531 was requested by the deputy plaintiff and it was understood that the appeal was granted within the period of the petition, the report issued by the Court of review Judge for the case file … and again the petition, the proceedings, hearing minutes and all the documents: The attorney of the plaintiff stated that his client purchased a flight ticket from the defendant company for a fee of 1,628 SEK on 19.12.2013 for a transfer flight from the airport … on 07.01.2014, and that his client did not appear on the online ticket sales page before the flight, and that his client was informed that there was no, On 07.01.2014, when his client went to the airport, his name was not included in the flight list and the plane was full and he was not accepted to the plane, his client was stranded in a foreign country where he did not know the language, no unit of the defendant company acted in clear violation of the regulation on the rights of passengers travelling, the client’s travel was delayed for 2 days but on 09.01.2014, and also in terms of baggage rights, the defendant company did not act in accordance with the obligation to inform the client suffered material and moral damages, claiming that, as of 07.01.2014, 1,805 TL material 20,000 TL moral compensation has been processed and will be processed with advance interest Acting defendant; the flight flight which the plaintiff claims to be victimized … is a flight operated by airlines and under the current agreement … the client company sells tickets, the plaintiff claims do not reflect the truth, the client … sells at the rate of the number of seats given by the airlines for the respective flight, the information that there is no place in the fare class allocated to the, if there is a delay beyond his control, despite his client’s efforts to prevent victimization, this delay is due to the fact that he is in Lulea, his home. the plaintiff has requested that the dismissal of the case be decided by arguing that the failure to obtain the flight of the plaintiff is not under the control of the client, and that the plaintiff’s demands for financial compensation are not documented, and that the failure to obtain the flight of the plaintiff has not occurred. Court,claim, defense, expert reports, witness statements, and all file according to the scope, was carried out on 09.01.2014 07.01.2014 after 2 days from date of carrying committed the plaintiff, the plaintiff therefore issued in accordance with the EU directive and required by the provisions of the regulations in force as of 01.01.2012 400-1.188 euro for the exchange, $ 40 criminal damages compensation he was entitled to qualified independent, the defendant was also charged 350-SEK by the company … which is the first carrier in the fiduciary duty of carrying 20 kg of free luggage for the entire transportation process, and this should be compensated by the defendant, the payment date rates of this is 117.52 TL so that the total material compensation claim of the plaintiff is calculated in the amount of 1.305. 92 TL, , on the grounds that he was with his daughter-in-law and heard as a witness, that he had not missed a special event which was irreparable due to a two-day delay, and that there were no conditions for moral compensation, the case was decided to be partially accepted and partially rejected.
<!– /wp:paragraph –>

<!– wp:paragraph –>
The Attorney General appealed the decision. The case relates to a claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from the airline’s contract of carriage. The attorney of the plaintiff requested moral compensation by informing him that his clients were not taken to the plane because of the defendant’s “…” application, so he left the airport after waiting at the airport for a while and was stranded in a country he did not know for 2 days. The fact that the plaintiff was not taken on board due to the defendant selling extra tickets is non-negotiable as far as the scope of the file is concerned. In the concrete case, the issue that needs to be discussed is whether the passengers who were not taken on board because of the excess ticket sale of the defendant airline can claim for moral compensation. In the light of the calculations carried out by the airlines with the help of Statistics in order to reduce cost and profit, it is known that they sell extra tickets by taking into account the proportion of passengers who buy tickets and do not board, and that some passengers or passengers cannot be taken on board because of the lack of space on the In practice, because of the extra sales called”…”, the victimization of some passengers who are not taken to the plane may be on the agenda, this victimization can reach the extent of moral damage and as a result, the provision of moral compensation may be on the agenda. Moral hazard disrupts a person’s emotional balance, the joy of life, the joy in life, reduces panic, fear, dread, age, anger, disgust, sadness, embarrassment, shame, hearing, moralsizlik, anxiety, hopelessness, feelings of loneliness, feelings of inferiority, negative emotions such as frustration, traumas or physical pain can be defined as (violations of the convention arising out of damages,…, Istanbul 2008, p. 184 et al.) In the concrete case, the plaintiff went to the Lulea/Sweden Airport with the necessary preparations for the airline passenger transport tickets received beforehand; however, the defendant had to leave the airport without making the trip due to the excess ticket sales made by the defendant. Although the defendant has argued that “…” is a common practice, the fact that a number of transactions and practices become commonplace over time does not mean that that process and practice is correct, nor does it mean that the negative effect on persons should be eliminated. As can be understood from the above definition, the fact that passenger candidates are not taken on board, even though they perform all their duty and care, can cause moral harm on their own, and this practice has the potential to damage the principle of equality, which can lead to discrimination between those who are taken on board and those who are not. However, the defendant must act as a prudent merchant, and air transport is a commercial activity that requires a special permit and has its own legislation and extended responsibilities. In this case, in the light of the principles and e…s described above, it is necessary to take into account that the moral damage of the plaintiff was caused by not being taken to the plane because of the application of “…” and, if necessary, to be given an appropriate moral compensation for the benefit of the plaintiff by considering the offer, such as the Conclusion: due to the reasons described in the above paragraph, it was decided unanimously on 08/06/2016 that the decision should be overturned by the acceptance of the appeal appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the cash fee paid for the appeal should be returned to the appellant at his request.
<!– /wp:paragraph –>