Lost luggage complaint letter

76-C-A-2005 -- Complaint of the consumers - Noor Malik against Aeroflot Russian Airlines RELATIVE?ne felt sorry for d?s?par Noor Malik against Aeroflot Russian Airlines, relatively?on refusal of d?mmager M damage caus??ne of its bags, for the loss of two of its bags and for certain missing articles?' int?or of a bag retrouv? at the time of flights between Toronto, Canada and Mumbai, India them or towards the 21.juillet and. [ 1 ] The 21.novembre 2002, Noor Malik has d?s?upr?du Commissaire with the complaints relating to transport a?en (Ci-apr?le CPRTA) the complaint?nc?dans the intitul?r?ementaire of this one, it has? renvoy??' Office of transport of Canada (Ci-apr?l' Office) it. [ 2 ] In do a letter of the 18.juillet 2003, the parts have? inform? comp?nce of the Office in this. Malik was?lement to warn the Office, in the ten (10) days following the r?ption of the letter, if it d?rait to officially continue this business in front of the Office and, the case??t, if it accepted that the comments d?s?aupr?du CPRTA hold place of pleadings in front of the Office. Malik does not have r?ndu in the prescribed d?is, and the personnel of the Office thus has essay? several recoveries to communicate with it, by t?phone and mail. Malik has communiqu?vec the personnel of the Office to inform it of its change of address and for pr?ser which it did not have re?la letter of July 18 October 2003., 2003, the parts have? inform? comp?nce of the Office in this. Malik?it?lement held to warn the Office, in the ten (10) days following the r?ption of the letter, if it d?rait to officially continue this business in front of the Office and, the case??t, if it accepted that the comments d?s?aupr?du CPRTA hold place of pleadings in front of the Office. Malik has inform?' Office which it d?rait d?ser officially its complaint in front of the Office, and it has accept?ue the comments which it had d?s?aupr?du CPRTA hold place of pleadings in front of the Office. [ 6 ] In a letter of October 22, 2003, a copy of the letter of M?eroflot Russian Airlines (Ci-apr?Aeroflot) and the conveyor was to warn the Office in the dix.(10).jours according to the r?ption of the letter if it accepted that the comments d?s?aupr?du CPRTA hold place of pleadings in front of the Office. Aeroflot does not have r?ndu in the prescribed d?is. Does Par.cons?ent, in a letter of January 27, 2004, the Office have agreement? Aeroflot ten (10) days for Malik five (5) days following the date of the r?ption of the r?nse of Aeroflot for d?ser r?ique. In its letter of January 30, 2004, Aeroflot has inform?' Office which it accepted that the comments d?s?aupr?du CPRTA hold place of pleadings. [ 7 ] Thereafter, the personnel of the Office has opinion? Malik?lusieurs taken again that the Office asked for pr?sions d?s?pr?demment relating to certain information in order to be able proc?r?' examination. The pr?sions demand? have? re?s on May 7, 2004 and envoy? ?eroflot for purposes of. Do the comments of Aeroflot have? Re? May 25, 2004. [ 8 ] Does the Office owe d?rminer if Aeroflot has appliqu?es relative conditions?a limit of its responsabilit? the?rd of the luggage enregistr?sp?fi? in its international tariff?n?t r?es applicable to the passengers and prices, conform?nt in the paragraph 110(4) of R?ement on a?ens transport. Malik has voyag?n company of his/her daughter 8 year old and of his/her son 18 year old of Toronto, Canada?umbai, India via Moscow on the flights of Aeroflot N Malik has d?uvert that one of its bags missed and that another had? endommag? Do two distinct reports/ratios of mat?elle loss have? compl?s. Malik, rapport?manquante?on arriv??umbai, A. Malik provided to the office of Aeroflot?umbai the list of the articles contained in its lost bag, indicating a total value of 18 405 #$$CAN>. Malik made the return voyage of Mumbai?oronto via Moscow on the flights. its arriv??oronto, it has d?uvert that two bags missed - belonging to him and the other pertaining?on wire. Only one report/ratio of mat?elle loss carrying the num?.59690 has? compl? for the two missing bags pr?ndu that a certain number of articles?ient missing. Does the bag of his/her son never have? retrouv? [ 13 ] Does a list of the pr?m?articles contained in the bags of Mr. Malik and his son as well as the value of the pr?m?articles lost during the flight of Mumbai?oronto have? provided to the office of Aeroflot?La total value r?am?dans this list?ve?1 980 #$$CAN>. Malik makes the point that?on arriv??umbai on the flight of Aeroflot N its luggage enregistr?manquait and another?it s?eusement endommag?imm?atement rapport?' incidental?' responsible agent which filled two distinct reports/ratios of mat?elle loss and has indiqu?ue the weight of the missing bag?it of 32 kilogrammes several of the articles that it and its family had apport?avec them to assist?n marriage?ient in. It adds that they have d?cheter articles of replacement in order to attend the marriage since the bag did not have? retrouv? Malik states?lement that the 31.juillet 2001, it provided to the office of Aeroflot?umbai an original chart of loading for the Toronto-Moscow part of the flight as well as the list of the articles contained in its lost bag, r?amant a total value of 18.405.#CAN, which the office of A?flot?umbai has to confirm?voir Re? Malik makes the point that it has communiqu??li?ment with Aeroflot during its s?ur?umbai. It indicates that during this time, Aeroflot A inform?que this business had? r?r??on office of Moscow for purposes of d?rmination and that the office of Mumbai could nothing make moreover. Malik d?are that at the time o?lle has d?uitter Mumbai to return?a house, malgr?ous its efforts, the missing bag did not have? retrouv?et no measurement had? taken concerning Malik adds that it has? inform?par Aeroflot right before leaving which it was to make a follow-up concerning this business with the office of the conveyor?oronto. Malik indicates that?on arriv??oronto on September 19, 2001, it has d?uvert that some of its luggage had once again? lost, that is to say one of its bags enregistr? and the bag of his/her son d?are to have imm?atement rapport?' incidental?' agent responsible for Aeroflot which filled only one report/ratio of mat?elle loss for the two missing bags. Malik d?are that on September 21, 2001, its bag which had? lost at the time of its flight?estination of Toronto in departure of Mumbai has? retourn??a r?dence?oronto and it maintains that certain articles of this bag?ient missing. It puts forward?lement that the bag of his/her son does not have?. Malik pr?nd that it cannot provide the proof of the value of the missing articles of the retrouv?puisque bag Re? of do these articles?ient in the bag which does not have? retrouv? it provided a list of the articles contained in the two missing bags, document intitul?.List and value of the articles lost at the time of a flight to the d?rt of India - Mumbai?estination of Canada - Toronto... The total value r?am?dans this list?ve?.Malik is indicated that the conveyor has demand?e to provide certain original documents?' to him support of his request and that it has personally apport?es documents with the director of the service?a customer?. Pearson-Toronto, and which it has re?une confirmation of this. Malik d?are that it has communiqu??li?ment with the personnel of Aeroflot?oronto o?lle had discussions with the chief of stopover which has demand?e to him to forward to him by t?copior all documentation concerning this business, including the original?quettes of luggage which it indicates to have given to the personnel of the office of Mumbai?or asks. Malik affirms to have t?copi?ous Malik states however that in the month ao?2002, it has? avis?par Aeroflot which its file had? ferm?[21 ] Aeroflot makes the point that it could offer no d?mmagement? Malik?nt donn?ue this one?it not available and that it had not been able to produce documentation n?ssaire?' support of its. [ 22 ] To arrive from there?es observations, the Office has all examin?ttentivement the?ments proof subjected by the parts during pleadings. The Office has also examin?es limits of responsabilit?' Aeroflot applicable to the transport of the luggage between points situ?au Canada and points situ??' ext?or of Canada, according to the tariff in force at the time of the complaint of M of some r?es relating to international a?en transport sign??arsovie the 12.octobre 1929. which returns ex?toire the Convention of Warsaw to Canada. [ 23 ] The relative comp?nce of the Office?a pr?nte felt sorry for is?blie in the paragraph 110(4) and?' article 113. 110(4) When a tariff d?s?orte a date of publication and a date of entr?en strength and that it is in conformity with the pr?nt r?ement and the arr?s of the Office, the taxes and the transport conditions which it contains, under r?rve of their rejection, their refusal or their suspension by the Office, or of their replacement by a new tariff, take effect?a date indiqu?dans the tariff and the conveyor a?en must apply them?ompter this date.1 If a licenci?' does not apply the prices, rate, expenses or transport conditions applicable to the international service and appear?on tariff, the Office can: ) him enjoindre to take corrective measurements which it estimates indiqu?. ) him enjoindre to compensate for the people l?es by the nonapplication for these prices, rates, expenses. [ 26 ] Also, the limits of responsabilit?our the lost luggage, endommag?ou retard?applicables with international a?en transport are?blies in the Convention of Warsaw, which has the force of law with. Particuli?ment, articles 22 and 23 of the Convention of Warsaw pr?ient, partly, which follows: ) In the transport of luggage enregistr?et of goods, the responsabilit?u conveying is limit??a nap of two hundred and fifty franks per kilogramme, except d?aration sp?ale of int?t?a delivery made by the exp?tor at the time of the handing-over of the parcel to the conveyor and with the help of the payment of a tax suppl?ntaire?ntuelle. case, the conveyor will be held to pay until?oncurrence of the sum d?ar? doesn't?oins what it prove that it is sup?eure?' int?t R? of the exp?tor?a delivery. 23(1) Any clause tightening?xon?r the conveyor of its responsabilit?u to?tablir a limit?elle inf?eure which is fix?dans the pr?nte Convention is null and of no effect, but the nullit?e this clause did not enter? not the nullit?u contract which remains subjected to the provisions. [ 27 ] Limits of responsabilit?nonc? in are the tariff of Aeroflot (NTA)(A) N of the incident, pr?es?a r?e 55, of which alin? following is applicable in this business: Except exception pr?e in the provisions of the Convention of Warsaw or any other law (1) the conveyor is not responsible for any loss or r?amation for some nature that it is (to which one makes Ci-apr?collectivement r?rence in this tariff as. damage.) r?ltant transport or other services assur?par the conveyor or li??eux-Ci?oins which there is a proof that the damage has? caus?ar the n?igence or a voluntary error of the conveyor and that there was no n?igence. (7) the responsabilit?u conveying limits?50 frank fran?s, 20 #$$US>, 20 #CAN per kilogramme?'?rd of the luggage enregistr?et? 000 franks fran?s, 400.$US, 400.#CAN by passenger in the case of luggage not enregistr?ou other propri?, is?oins what a value sup?eure d?ar??' advances and that expenses suppl?ntaires are pay?en virtue of the tariff of the conveying conveyor?a value sup?eure d?ar is limited? will not d?ssera to in no case the loss r?le undergone by the passenger. loss is exig?pour all r?amations. (12) Responsabilit?our the fragile articles, irrempla?les or p?ssables the conveyor will not be held responsible for the loss, of the damage or of the delay in the delivery of fragile articles or p?ssables, money, jewels, silverware, n?ciables effects, values or other valuable articles, mat?el of office or let us?antillons included in the luggage enregistr?du momentary, that the conveyor has some. [ 28 ] The tariff of Aeroflot?lement includes/understands provisions identifying the kind of luggage which the conveyor will transport without additional expenses when a passenger travels in?nomic class. Will the conveyor transport two free pi?s of luggage, the premi? not d?ssant 62 inches and 70 books, and the deuxi? not d?ssant 55 inches and 70 books. Malik includes/understands the three following r?amations: A r?amation of 18 405 #CAN?'?rd of so-called articles contained in the bag of Malik which has? lost on the way towards Mumbai in July 2001. A r?amation?'?rd of the damage caus??ne of the bags of Mr. a r?amation of 11 980 #CAN?'?rd of the so-called articles contained in the bag of the son of Malik lost on the way towards Toronto in September 2001 and the articles missing supposedly Malik which has? retourn??a r?dence several days apr?le vol. Malik the information and the documents n?ssaires. In fact, the Office does not have finally re?que on March 18 2004 Malik, documents which it had with the d?rt to indiqu?voir forwarded. The original itin?anger and invoices on July 16, 2001 for Mr. the original itin?anger and invoices on July 16, 2001 for the son of Mr. Two reports/ratios of original mat?elle loss?s?umbai on July 21, 2001. A copy of the letter on 18 d?mbre 2001 of M. The report/ratio of mat?elle loss?s by the power station of the luggage?oronto on September 19, 2001. [ 31 ] Does the Office have examin?ttentivement all the documents pr?t?et note that Aeroflot does not have contest?es Malik according to which the bags have? lost, or questioned the v?cit?es information contained in the reports/ratios of mat?elle loss, nor still the all?tion which a bag had. Does the Office conclude as well as the evidence gives?enser that the two bags have? lost during flights of Aeroflot between Toronto and Mumbai, and that a bag has? endommag? [ 32 ] Under the terms of the r?e 55(D)(7) of the tariff of Aeroflot, the responsabilit?u conveying relative with the frank luggage enregistr?se limit?50 fran?s per kilogramme?oins that a passenger has d?ar? the advance a value sup?eure and has fresh pay?es additional exigible with the conveyor. Malik all?e that the value of the articles contained in the lost bags?ve?nviron 30.000.#CAN, there does not exist any proof that Mr. Malik has d?ar?ne value sup?eure or pay? Aeroflot of the additional expenses?'?rd of the luggage. The Office notes moreover than one certain number of the articles contained in the luggage according to Mr. Malik are articles for which the conveyor d?are express?nt?e not responsible in the r?e 55(D)(12) for his tariff responsabilit?' Aeroflot relative with the lost luggage, including the contents, limits?50.francs. [ 33 ] Although the weight indiqu?ur the report/ratio of mat?elle loss relatively?a bag lost on the way towards Mumbai is 32 kilogrammes, there is not any proof relative with the weight of the bag lost on the way. Under the terms of the r?e 115(Q)(1)(c) of the tariff of Aeroflot, the conveyor will transport two free pi?s of luggage not d?ssant 70 books (32 kilogrammes). of proof of the opposite, the Office thinks that it is reasonable to estimate?2 kilogrammes the weight of the bag lost on the way towards Toronto. By cons?ent, the Office estimates that the responsabilit?' Aeroflot for the loss of the two bags limits?50 frank fran?s multipli?par 64 kilogrammes, the frank owes?e converted into dollars 2(6) the sums mentionn? in franks?' article 22 of appendix I are, for purposes of the actions intent? against the conveyors, converted into Canadian dollars at the rate of exchange in force the day o?e court fixes the amount of the damage-int?ts?ayer by the conveyor. 2(7) For do the application of the paragraph (6)?ivalent it, in Canadian dollars, of the sums exprim? in drawing rights sp?aux or franks, under article 22 of convention appearing?' appendix I, is d?rmin?e the mani? following: ) for the conversion of the franks into drawing rights sp?aux, the rate of exchange is 15,075 franks by drawing right sp?al.) for the conversion of the drawing rights sp?aux into Canadian dollars, the rate of exchange will be that?bli by the Funds mon?anger international. [ 35 ] By applying the formula pr?t? 250 franks?ivaut?6,58 sp?aux drawing right (Ci-apr?DTS). On 10 f?ier 2005 more r?nts information available indicates that the Funds mon?anger international converts the SDR into Canadian dollars (#$$CAN>) by using a rate of. By using this rate, 250 franks (le.produit of 250 multipli?L' Office estimates as well as d?mmagement that Aeroflot will have to pay? for the two lost bags?ve? 988.#CAN (64 multipli?ar the product of 250 multipli?ar Malik relative with the missing articles of the bag retrouv? does the Office think that the evidence with the file does not justify the r?amation of F? acceptable. Malik quite simply provided?' Office a list of supposedly missing articles?a bag retrouv?et?a bag of his/her son lost on the way towards Toronto, without providing Re? ?' support or other indications relatively?uels articles were in which bag certain overlapping between this list and the provided list?' support of the r?amation relatively?a bag. Malik relatively?a bag endommag? the Office refers?a r?e 55(D)(1) of the tariff of Aeroflot which pr?it that the conveyor is not responsible for any damage?oins which there exists a proof that the conveyor has caus?e damage and. that there was none. Does the Office note that a report/ratio of mat?elle loss has? compl? by the passag? imm?atement?on arriv??umbai. The Office thus estimates that Aeroflot should refund the expenses of r?ration. [ 38 ] the lumi? of what pr?de, the Office estimates that while refusing to offer some d?mmagement that this Malik, Aeroflot does not have appliqu?es transport conditions?nc? in its tariff and contravened the provisions of the paragraph 110(4) of the RTA. [ 39 ] While being based on the observations which pr?dent, the Office, under the terms of article 113. Malik for the sum of 1 988.#CAN (64 multipli?ar the product of 250 multipli?ar the rate of exchange) in the thirty (30) days following the date of the pr?nte d?sion. [ 40 ] Moreover, the Office enjoint?eroflot of d?mmager Mr. Malik for the r?ration of its bag endommag?en road towards Mumbai, on r?ption of reasonable evidence of the r?ration provided per M. [ 41 ]?ant donn?e lack of evidence?' support, the Office rejects by the pr?ntes the remainder of the complaint.