Claims For Moral Damages By Passengers Who Were Denied Boarding Due To Overselling Of Tickets By The Airline Company
T.C. 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Main No: 2015/11487, Decision No: 2016/6313
Summary
The defendant’s attorney stated that the flight that the plaintiff claims to have been victimized is a flight operated by … airlines and that his client company sells tickets within the scope of the existing … agreement, that the plaintiff’s allegations do not reflect the truth, that his client made sales in proportion to the number of seats allocated by … airlines for the relevant flight, that the information that there were no seats left in the fare class allocated to the client company in the sales systems of the relevant airline was transferred to the records of the client company late due to the failure in the electronic mail systems used by the two airlines, that … ‘s negligence when it should have informed about the situation of the plaintiff, who was a passenger of his client’s partnership, and that if there was a delay beyond his control despite his client’s efforts to prevent victimization, this delay was caused by … The Court, according to the claim, defense, expert report, witness statements and the entire file scope, the plaintiff’s transportation was carried out on 09.01.2014, 2 days after the promised date of 07. 01.01.2014 on 09.01.2014, 2 days after the date of 01.01.2014, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 400-Euro equivalent of 1.188,40 TL as a penalty independent compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation issued in accordance with the EU Directive and in force as of 01. 1.188,40 TL equivalent to 400-Euro as per the provisions of the Regulation issued pursuant to the EU Directive and in force as of 01.01.2012, the defendant is entitled to compensation in the form of penalty independent of damages, and despite the defendant’s commitment of 20 kg of free baggage for the entire transportation process, 350-SEK was collected by the … company, which is the first carrier in the joint transportation in the position of the defendant’s performance assistant, and this should also be compensated by the defendant, and this is 117,52 TL at the exchange rates of the payment date, so that the total financial compensation claim of the plaintiff is calculated as 1. 305,92 TL, the transportation of the plaintiff with a delay of two days due to the fact that the plaintiff was not taken into transportation on the grounds of occupancy would not constitute an attack on his personal rights, because the plaintiff did not stay alone in …, he was with his daughter-in-law … who was heard as a witness, he did not miss a special event that could not be compensated due to the delay of two days, it was decided to partially accept and partially reject the lawsuit on the grounds that the conditions for moral compensation did not occur….
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed non-pecuniary damages by stating that his clients were not allowed to board the flight due to the defendant’s “…” practice, that he left the airport after waiting at the airport for a while, and that he was stranded in an unfamiliar country for 2 days. It is not disputed as of the scope of the file that the plaintiff was not allowed to board the flight due to the defendant selling extra tickets. In the concrete case, the issue to be considered and discussed is whether the passengers who were not allowed to board the plane due to the excessive ticket sales of the defendant airline company can claim non-pecuniary damages. …
In this case, in the light of the principles and e…s explained above, it is necessary to consider that the plaintiff has suffered non-pecuniary damage by not being taken on the flight solely due to the “…” practice, and if necessary, by evaluating the offer made by the defendant institution, such as the provision of a seat on the flight 2 days later, an appropriate non-pecuniary compensation should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff, but it was not deemed correct to establish a rejection judgment on the grounds that the conditions were not met, and the judgment had to be reversed in favor of the plaintiff…
Decision
COURT: COMMERCIAL COURT
In the case between the parties, the Supreme Court review of the decision dated 08/06/2015 and numbered 2014/459-2015/531 given by the … Commercial Court of First Instance was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney and it was understood that the petition for appeal was submitted within the time limit, and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge … for the case file was listened to and again after the petitions, pleadings, hearing minutes and all documents in the file were read and examined, the necessity of the matter was discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client purchased a flight ticket from the defendant company on 19.12.2013 for 1.628 SEK for a connecting flight from … Airport to … Airport on 07.01.2014, that before the flight, his client found that the flight … did not appear on the online ticket sales page, that he was informed by the defendant company that there was no problem with the flight and that he would fly on the specified date, that when he went to the airport on 07.01. 2014, when his client went to the airport on 07.01.2014, he was victimized by not being admitted to the flight stating that his name was not included in the flight list and the plane was full, his client was stranded in a foreign country where he did not speak the language, none of the units of the defendant company contacted his client for about 10 hours, clearly violating the Regulation on the Rights of Passengers Traveling by Air, as a result of the long and laborious efforts made by the client and his relatives, his client was able to make his trip with a delay of 2 days only on 09. 01.01.2014, and also claimed that his client suffered material and moral damages due to the defendant company’s failure to comply with its obligation to inform in terms of baggage allowance, and demanded and sued for the collection of 1.805 TL pecuniary damages and 20.000 TL non-pecuniary damages from the defendant together with the advance interest accrued and to be accrued as of 07.01.2014.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the flight that the plaintiff claims to have been victimized is a flight operated by … airlines and that his client company sells tickets within the scope of the existing … agreement, that the plaintiff’s allegations do not reflect the truth, that his client … … made sales in proportion to the number of seats allocated by the airlines for the relevant flight, the information that there were no seats left in the fare class allocated to the client partnership in the sales systems of the relevant airline was transferred to the records of the client partnership late due to the failure in the electronic mail systems used by the two airlines, … neglected to inform the client partnership about the situation of the plaintiff who was a passenger of the client partnership, despite the efforts of the client to prevent victimization, if there was a delay beyond its control, this delay was caused by the fact that the plaintiff’s home was in Lulea.
arguing that there has not been a disruption that would cause a mental breakdown in the plaintiff and require an award of non-pecuniary damages, that the conditions for non-pecuniary damages have not been met, that the failure to provide the plaintiff’s flight was not under the control of the client, that the plaintiff’s claims for pecuniary damages have not been documented, and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court, according to the claim, defense, expert report, witness statements and the entire file scope, the plaintiff’s transportation was carried out on 09.01.2014, 2 days after the committed date of 07.01.2014, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 400-Euro equivalent 1. 188,40 TL as a penalty independent of the damage, and despite the defendant’s commitment of 20 kg of free baggage for the entire transportation process, 350-SEK was collected by the … company, which is the first carrier in the joint transportation in the position of the defendant’s performance assistant, and this should also be compensated by the defendant, and this is 117,52 TL at the exchange rates of the payment date, so that the plaintiff’s total financial compensation claim is calculated as 1. 305,92 TL, the plaintiff’s transportation with a delay of two days due to the fact that the plaintiff was not taken into transportation on the grounds of occupancy would not constitute an attack on personal rights, because the plaintiff was not alone in …, she was with her daughter-in-law … who was heard as a witness, she did not miss a special event that could not be compensated due to the delay of two days, and that the conditions for non-pecuniary damages did not occur, it was decided to partially accept and partially reject the lawsuit on the grounds that the conditions for non-pecuniary damages did not occur.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
The lawsuit is related to the claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from the airline transportation contract.
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed non-pecuniary damages by stating that his clients were not allowed to board the flight due to the defendant’s “…” practice, that he left the airport after waiting at the airport for a while, and that he was stranded in an unfamiliar country for 2 days. It is not disputed as of the scope of the file that the plaintiff was not allowed to board the flight due to the defendant selling extra tickets. In the concrete case, the issue that needs to be emphasized and discussed is whether the passengers who were not taken on the plane due to the excessive ticket sales of the defendant airline company can claim non-pecuniary damages.
It is a known fact that airline companies sell extra tickets in the light of the calculations they make with the help of statistics in order to reduce costs and make a profit, taking into account the ratio of passengers who buy tickets and do not board the plane, and in this direction, it is a known fact that some passengers or passengers cannot be taken on the plane due to the lack of space on the plane due to the extra tickets sold from time to time. In practice, due to the extra sales called “…”, some passengers who are not allowed to board the plane may be victimized, this victimization may reach the dimension of moral damage and as a result, the award of moral damages may come to the agenda.
Moral damage may be defined as negative emotions, shocks or physical pains such as panic, fear, terror, grief, anger, disgust, anguish, humiliation, shame, demoralization, uneasiness, hopelessness, loneliness, feeling of inferiority, disappointment, which disrupt the emotional balance of the person, reduce the joy and pleasure of living (Moral Damages for Breach of Contract,…, Istanbul 2008, p. 184 et seq.).
In the concrete case, within the scope of the airline passenger transportation tickets purchased in advance, the plaintiff went to Lulea/Sweden Airport by making the necessary preparations; however, due to the excessive ticket sales made by the defendant, he had to leave the airport without traveling. Although the defendant has argued that the “…” transaction is an ordinary practice, the fact that certain transactions and practices become ordinary over time does not mean that the transaction and practice is correct, nor does it require the elimination of the negative impact on individuals. In this case, as can be understood from the definition above, the fact that the prospective passengers were not allowed to board the plane despite the fact that they fulfilled all their obligations and due diligence may cause moral damage in itself, and the practice in question has the potential to lead to discrimination between those who are allowed on the plane and those who are not, and to damage the principle of equality protected by the Constitution.
Moreover, the defendant is obliged to act as a prudent merchant and airline transportation is a commercial activity that requires a special permit, has its own legislation and extended responsibilities.
In this case, in the light of the principles and e…s explained above, while it should be taken into consideration that the plaintiff has suffered non-pecuniary damage by not being taken on the plane solely due to the “…” practice and, if necessary, an appropriate non-pecuniary compensation should be awarded in favor of the plaintiff by evaluating the offer made by the defendant institution, such as the provision of a seat on the flight 2 days later, it was not deemed correct to establish a rejection judgment on the grounds that the conditions were not met, and the judgment had to be reversed in favor of the plaintiff
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in the above paragraph, it was unanimously decided on 08/06/2016 that the appeal objections of the plaintiff’s attorney are accepted and the decision is DISMISSED and the prepaid appeal fee paid shall be returned to the appellant upon request.