A federal court issued a ruling in a case where two passengers sought compensation after the cancellation and unilateral rescheduling of a flight operated by an international airline. After reviewing the facts and applicable regulations, the court decided to grant partial compensation to the claimants and held the airline responsible for damages resulting from the breach of contract.
According to the case file, the passengers purchased round-trip tickets between Buenos Aires and Cancún. The outbound flight proceeded without issues, but the situation changed during the return journey. The flight scheduled to depart from the Mexican city on February 28, 2024, initially experienced a delay, followed by multiple rescheduling attempts, and was ultimately canceled, according to the judicial resolution.
The passengers were taken to a hotel during the early morning hours and returned to the airport the following day without receiving clear information about their situation. The assistance provided by the company was considered insufficient by the claimants, who decided to seek support through virtual channels, including messaging applications. The alternatives offered by the airline were not viable for the passengers, who were finally able to board another flight on February 29, arriving in Buenos Aires on March 1, nearly 20 hours later than the original itinerary.
Passengers Claimed Additional Expenses and Damages
During the waiting period, the affected passengers reported missing work commitments and incurring additional expenses, including the use of exclusive airport services whose cost they included in their claim.
They also requested compensation in both dollars and pesos for damages, arguing that they were entitled to reimbursement under current legislation and international air transport agreements. In total, they requested 3,516.04 dollars and 500,000 pesos.
The airline, in its response to the lawsuit, acknowledged the incident but attributed the flight cancellation to unexpected maintenance work required for operational safety reasons. The company argued that the situation constituted a case of force majeure and that passengers were relocated to the next available flight, receiving additional services such as food, transportation, and accommodation.
Court Applied the Montreal Convention
The Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 1 analyzed the arguments and determined that the 1999 Montreal Convention, an international treaty regulating air transportation and establishing liability criteria in cases of delays and cancellations, was applicable.
The ruling emphasized that the airline failed to prove that the technical issues it cited were unpredictable and unavoidable, a necessary condition to avoid responsibility under the mentioned regulations.
In the considerations of the ruling, the judge highlighted that airlines must make every effort to comply with the itineraries they offer, except in circumstances that are completely beyond their control.
The decision also pointed out the lack of evidence regarding adequate assistance provided to the passengers and the absence of proof that immediate rebooking on the next available flight had been carried out, as required by local regulations and applicable international agreements.
Court Rejects Some Claims but Grants Partial Compensation
Regarding the damages requested, the court evaluated each category separately.
The request for compensation related to the use of VIP airport services was rejected because the passengers used a benefit they were already entitled to and did not pay any additional amount for it. The court also found no evidence that the use of the service caused a specific financial loss.
However, regarding food expenses and basic consumption costs during the waiting period, the judge partially accepted the claim. The court considered these expenses a direct and immediate consequence of the contractual breach and established compensation of 150,000 pesos, equivalent to 75,000 pesos for each passenger.
The request for compensation based on the maximum liability limit established by the Montreal Convention was rejected. The court stated that international regulations do not provide automatic compensation, but rather establish a maximum liability limit that depends on proof of actual damages. In this case, the claimants did not demonstrate additional losses beyond those already recognized.
Airline Ordered to Pay and Cover Legal Costs
The ruling established that the awarded amount would accrue interest from the date the delay was notified until full payment.
Additionally, legal costs were imposed on the airline because it was considered unsuccessful in the main portion of the claim.
The ruling, obtained by Infobae, emphasized that the airline failed to demonstrate a valid reason exempting it from responsibility and did not prove that it provided the assistance required under current regulations.
For that reason, the court determined that the financial damages claimed, insofar as they were directly related to the incident, must be covered by the airline.
The case highlights the scope of airline obligations in international travel and the protection of passenger rights in situations involving flight cancellations or schedule changes.
The full text of the ruling confirms the continued application of the principles established by the Montreal Convention and Argentine legislation in force at the time of the events, as well as the requirement for sufficient evidence when companies seek exemption from liability in passenger air transportation cases.
Source: infobae
