Ġurisprudenza

Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 2 Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 3, 1. Unfair Contract Terms Directive, Article 4, 1.

Refusal of tribunal to take cognizance of submission that conditions of carriage are irregular.

Plaintiff company made a lawsuit after being surrogated in the rights of various consumers insured with it, claiming damages suffered by the said consumers following non-delivery and /or damage to luggage after flying with defendant company. Plaintiff company after undertaking its investigations had duly paid the various consumers for the damages incurred as a result of the loss/damage suffered and subsequently undertook action to recover damages it paid to the insured parties from defendant company.
Defendant company made pleas opposing the claims of plaintiff, notably that none of the plaintiffs notified defendant company within the time limits established in its terms of carriage of defendant company
.

The Tribunal noted that according to the International Convention of Montreal on the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air which regulates such matters – and which also applies to defendant company - consumers had seven days in which to file their claim for the lost/damaged luggage. Consumers immediately filed their claims using what is known Property Irregularity Report [‘PIR’] which report was immediately transmitted to defendant company. However defendant company, unlike other major airlines which use Malta’s airport does not accept PIR as a valid means of filing such claims in writing. According to the terms and conditions of defendant company such claims must be made within seven days in writing directly to it and that this was done.
Plaintiff company argued that the terms of carriage of defendant company were much more onerous than those of other airlines and than the norms under the Montreal Convention. Tribunal noted that whilst it results that defendant company according to its own norms makes it much more difficult for passengers to be paid damages – the role of the Tribunal is to decide the validity of such money claims on the basis of the applicable terms and conditions noting that if plaintiff company considered that the conditions imposed by defendant company when the consumers made their booking as irregular, then its complaint should be addressed before another forum and not before the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore decided not to uphold the claims of plaintiff company.

Test sħiħ: Test sħiħ

Ebda riżultat disponibbli

Ebda riżultat disponibbli