2017 QCCQ 2049, 2017 QCCQ 2049

Singh c. Air India 2017 QCCQ 2049 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL "Civil Division" No: 500-32-150757-161 DATE: February 24 th , 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE GATIEN FOURNIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LAKHVINDER SINGH Plaintiff v.

AIR INDIA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff, Lakhvinder Singh (« Singh »), claims from the Defendant, Air India (« AI »), an amount of $5,265.00. Singh is of the opinion that AI was not entitled to charge him penalties and rebooking fees even though, he and the members of his family were late for check-in for their August 29 th , 2015 return flight out of Delhi. THE FACTS [ 2 ] AI alleges in its contestation the following facts: A. LEGAL STANDING 1.

Plaintiff purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of four (4) other passengers who were travelling with him, but who are not parties to the action. 2. Plaintiff has no legal standing to sue on behalf of third parties and the claim should be dismissed insofar as its purports to recover damages not directly suffering by the plaintiff. B. RE-BOOKING OF PLAINTIFF’S FLIFHT 3. The reason plaintiff and his party did no board their August 29, 2015 return flight AI 127 out of Delhi as originally scheduled was that they showed up late for check-in. 4.

More specifically, the passengers presented themselves at the check-in counter no earlier than 1:27, less than 60 minutes before their 2:20 scheduled departure, and after the 1:20 boarding time shown on their boarding passes (see Plaintiff’s on pages 16-17). 5. Indeed, plaintiff admits that he and his party were late, for reasons entirely unrelated to the defendant, to wit:

a) in his January 15 ,2016 letter attached to his same date Application to this Court, he writes: “w e were 7 minutes late ”;

b) in Exhibit P-1 (claims letter to Air India, dated September 27, 2015), he writes: “ we remained stuck for 2 hours 30 minutes as the traffic was not moving at all. (…) Then, we were next to the [check-in] counter at 1:27 am ”. 6. Passengers are required to check-in for their flight at least 60 minutes prior to their scheduled departure time, the more as fully appears from Air India’s website (see Exhibit D-1 ). 7.

This information also appears on the passenger’s itinerary, and plaintiff is hereby put on notice to file the full copy of his and his party’s respective itineraries, failing which secondary evidence of the same shall be filed by Air India. 8. Sixty (60) minutes before the scheduled take off time, all related software systems are programmed to “close the flight for check- in”, i.e. no entries can be made in the system and late passengers are shown to be “NO SHOW”. 9.

This 60-minute cut-off time is an industry standard for international flights and is necessary to allow the carrier enough time to finalize its passengers list, forward all Advance Passenger Information to authorities in the country of destination, complete all operations regarding checked luggage and on-board meals and refreshment, and finalise the flight plan (including weights and balance, and fuel calculations) in time for the scheduled departure time and associated slot at the airport.

10. Air India’s General Conditions of Carriage (i.e. the underlying contract) clearly stipulate that the failure by the passengers to arrive on-time for check-in may result in the carrier cancelling the passenger’s reservation, without any liability on the former’s part for loss or expense, the more as fully appears from

article 7 of Air India’s General Conditions of Carriage (see Exhibit D-2 ). 11. Nevertheless, Air India accommodated the passengers by immediately rebooking them (on August 29, 2015) on the next available flight to Montréal (in conjunction with Air Canada, as the last leg of the flight was on that carrier), upon payment of 350.00$CA, as follows:

c) A NO-SHOW penalty of 250.00$CA per passenger; plus

d) A rebooking fee of 125.00$CA per passenger. 12. Plaintiff and his party upgraded their tickets from their original booking in “T” class to “H” class on the first leg of their return flight, and agreed to pay an additional amount of 387.00$CA per passenger for such upgrade. 13.

More specifically, the value of the unused portion of the original ticket, less penalties and rebooking fees amounting to 350.00$CA, was entirely applied towards payment of the 1,026.00$CA fare for the replacement ticket, which replacement ticket cost 387.00$CA more than the corresponding portion of the original ticket, as a result of the upgrade from “T” class. 14. Thus, the total amount per passenger received by Air India and Air Canada for rebooking the passengers amounted to 762.00$CA, and not 1,026.00$CA as claimed by plaintiff. 15. Air India attaches a

summary of the fare for the both the original tickets ( Exhibit D-3 ) and the replacement tickets ( Exhibit D-4 ) in support of the above. C. OTHER DAMAGES 16. As for plaintiff’s claim for refreshments and meals en-route, there is no obligations or liability on the part of the carrier for such expenses, for which the passengers are solely responsible. 17.

In any event, Air India notes that, perhaps not coincidentally, the amount of 135.00$CA claimed in this regard (and for which no receipt of proof of payment are provided) is the same amount which plaintiff and his party paid – and would have had to pay in any event – for excess baggage. 18.

Any and all damages suffered by the plaintiff and his party are entirely the result of events – being the passengers’ failure to arrive on time at the airport check-in counter – for which the carrier is in no way responsible, much less liable. [ 3 ] Most of the facts alleged by AI are not denied by Singh. [ 4 ] Singh only disputes AI’s right to charge him penalties and rebooking fees for the replacement tickets that he had to purchase after he and the members of his family showed up late for their flight out of Delhi on August 29 th , 2015. [ 5 ] According to Singh, AI should have let them board their flight even if he agrees, he and his party were late. [ 6 ] AI representative indicates that 60 minutes prior to the departure of the plane, the check-in counter closes for boarding and no check-in is possible afterwards. [ 7 ] This policy has been put in place for security and practical reasons. [ 8 ] All airlines, including AI, apply that policy for international flights.

This is an industry standard. [ 9 ] Consequently, Singh and the four members of his family were considered in the AI system as if they did not show up. [ 10 ] Singh’s reservations were then cancelled and a no-show penalty and a rebooking fee was required by AI in order to issue replacement tickets. [ 11 ] The AI representative confirms however that the value of the unused portion of the original ticket was entirely applied towards payments of the $762.00 fare for the replacement ticket. [ 12 ] Contrary to what Singh alleges, he did not pay $1,026.00 for each replacement ticket. [ 13 ] He paid in total $762.00 per passenger including $387.00 as an additional amount that Singh agreed to pay to upgrade from “T” to “H” class. [ 14 ] The difference is the no-show penalty of $250.00 and the rebooking fee of $125.00.

ISSUE [ 15 ] Was AI entitled to charge a no-show penalty and a rebooking fee to Singh and the other four members of his family for their replacement tickets? ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 16 ] Pursuant to

Section 2803 of the Civil Code of Quebec , a person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based.

[ 17 ] In order to be successful, Singh had to show, in accordance with

Section 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec , that AI was not entitled to charge the no-show penalty and the rebooking fee for the replacement tickets that had to be issued after he and the other four members of his family showed up late for check-in on August 29 th , 2015. [ 18 ] Unfortunately for Singh, he did not meet his burden of proof. [ 19 ] Indeed, except for his mere assertions, Singh did not submit other evidence in support of his position.

By not doing so, he did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the no-show penalty and the rebooking fee that were charged were contrary to the AI’s General Conditions of Carriage or contrary to the industry standard. [ 20 ] All in all, it rather appears that AI was in its absolute right to charge a no-show penalty and a rebooking fee for each replacement tickets issued to Singh. [ 21 ] Lastly, the Court is of the opinion, given the circumstances of the present matter, that each parties should bear their own costs.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s application, without costs. __________________________________ GATIEN FOURNIER, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: January 9 th , 2017