Claim for damage compensation caused by change in flight schedule 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Claim for damage compensation caused by change in flight schedule
Date
2021-02-10
Hit
793
The petitioner purchased a round-trip domestic flight ticket between Gimpo and Jeju from the respondent on March 6 2020 for KRW 91,000. On March 21 2020, the petitioner received a text message that the returning flight A from Jeju to Gimpo had been cancelled and substituted by an alternative flight B [Text Message 1]. On March 24 2020, the respondent sent the petitioner another text message that the alternative flight B had been substituted by another alternative flight C [Text Message 2]. However, the petitioner did not read Text Message 2 and missed flight C, as a result, the petitioner had to purchase another flight ticket from another airliner.
The petitioner had to purchase another flight ticket from another airliner, hence claiming compensation for KRW 108,000 the petitioner had paid therefor.
The respondent’s domestic passenger transport terms and conditions provides that if the flight is cancelled, the confirmed seat of the flight cannot be served, the aircraft does not land in the scheduled destination, or the flight does not operate normally according to the flight schedule due to a cause other than the passenger’s circumstances, the airliner should transport the passenger and baggages through another flight or another transportation available without charging fares or provide refunds according to relevant rules and regulations. The respondent claims that it could not operate the flight according to the flight schedule due to changes in business plans and sent the petitioner text messages and it was not obliged to notify the passenger over the telephone. However, the respondent has the duty of care to provide alternative flights and accurate notices to avoid increasing damages to consumers. Given that Text Message 2 stated that flight schedule A was changed, which had already been substituted by an alternative flight and was largely the same as Text Message 1 but for the flight number and time, which might have led the consumer to finding the message the same as the previous notice and ignoring it, that the notice was given that the original flight schedule had been substituted and the consumer had to plan to get onboard with flight B, and a new notice should have been given when flight B was substituted by flight C, that, if the respondent had intended to stick to the format of the text message used for the previous notice, it should have avoided confusing the consumer by, for example, calling the consumer, as the flight times and numbers in the two text messages were similar and confusable, and the second alternative flight was scheduled to depart earlier than the first alternative, hence likely that the passenger would miss the boarding time, that the claim that the decision had been made urgently on the day before the flight and a large number of flights had to be cancelled so the respondent could not notify individual passengers thereof over the telephone does not justify the respondent’s negligence of its duty of care to avoid increasing damages to consumers caused by flight cancellation, and that the consumer eventually could not take the alternative flight and the respondent should have provided the consumer with a suitable alternative flight at that time, the respondent shall be held accountable for the petitioner’s damage from flight cancellation and poor notification on the provision of alternative flights. Provided, the petitioner should have paid extra attention to text messages received from the airliner but ended up overlooking them, which constitutes comparative negligence and justifies the liability of the respondent being limited to 70%. Given the intention of dispute settlement to resolve disputes by mutual concession and pursuant to relevant laws, and all other circumstances, the decision has been made as stated above.
1. The respondent shall pay the petitioner KRW 75,600 no later than January 5 2021.
2. In the event that the respondent delays the payment payable under Paragraph 1, late-payment penalties at a rate of 6% per annum calculated from January 6 2021 to the date of full payment shall be added.
