news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

when checking in, the man was informed on the spot that there was no free checked baggage allowance, and the baggage check fee he had to pay on site was more expensive than the air ticket. the man had no choice but to purchase the checked baggage allowance in order to travel on time. he later sued the ticket purchase platform and the airline. to the court.

on october 5, a reporter from the paper learned from the shanghai changning district people's court that the court had previously rejected the man's request for a refund of the baggage check fee and compensation for losses. the court stated that based on the evidence provided by the platform, it can be determined that the platform has fulfilled its notification obligation.

according to the court, li claimed that he booked a ticket from shanghai to australia with a stop at a certain place on a well-known online travel platform, and completed the payment based on the combination recommended by the platform. after the transaction was successful, when li arrived at the airport as scheduled to check in and check in his luggage, he was told at the counter that the flight was not a connecting flight, and that the baggage allowance was different from the baggage allowance regulations for subsequent segments. free checked baggage allowance.

li was told that if he wanted to check in his luggage on the current flight, he would need to purchase an additional checked baggage ticket. calculated on the spot, the price of temporarily purchasing baggage allowance is high, even higher than the cost of air tickets. faced with this unexpected situation, li had no choice but to purchase the baggage allowance for this segment of the flight at a cost of more than 1,000 yuan on the spot.

after making the payment, li believed that neither the ticket purchasing platform nor the airline clearly informed him that there was no free baggage allowance on the website booking interface. he was unable to understand the baggage policy in advance, which resulted in him being unable to plan in advance and purchase appropriate baggage allowance products. as a result, he was unable to lock in the services you need at a better price. therefore, li sued the platform and the airline to the court, requiring the platform and the airline to refund the baggage check fee and compensate for the losses.

the court held that the case should be considered from the following two aspects.

first, the platform’s multi-trip combination tickets are not connecting tickets. the court stated that when passengers purchase tickets on the platform, the platform often recommends transfer itineraries for combined flights to passengers, and multi-ticket combinations appear in itineraries that require transfers. this form of combined ticket is a non-connecting flight, and is independently ticketed by the operating airline for each flight segment. there are usually two or more transportation contracts. this type of ticket is actually an itinerary spliced ​​together by the ticket issuer. the first segment is the voyage and subsequent voyages are independent of each other and do not affect each other. a connecting ticket is a whole itinerary. if a passenger has booked two or more flights on the same ticket number, the connecting ticket only has one ticket number. the rules for ticket rescheduling, refund, endorsement, baggage, etc. are significantly different between connecting flights and non-connecting flights. according to the "public air transport passenger service management regulations", if a passenger books two or more flights at the same time, the sales unit should make it clear inform whether it is a connecting flight.

in addition, when booking air tickets, baggage check-in policy is an important factor affecting consumer decisions. the platform should prominently inform consumers of the types of multi-trip air tickets during the ordering process, assist consumers in screening and itinerary comparisons, and use prompts to guide consumers to determine the final product selection based on their own needs after fully inquiring and understanding the corresponding information. and make a reservation.

therefore, when platforms push multi-trip air tickets to consumers, they should fully remind them of the ticket types, refunds, changes, and baggage policies, so as not to cause some consumers to confuse the ticket types and affect their travel plans.

secondly, the platform must provide evidence to prove whether it has fulfilled its obligation to provide notifications.

in this case, both parties disagreed as to whether the platform fully informed the "multi-trip ticket type" and provided a reminder that the ticket order had "no free baggage allowance".

the court stated that according to the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law, the parties concerned must provide evidence to prove the facts on which they make their own claims or the facts on which they refute the other party's claims. as a network service platform, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the e-commerce law, e-commerce platform operators should record and save the product and service information and transaction information published on the platform, and ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of the information. e-commerce platform operators also have the obligation to prominently remind important contract terms in a reasonable manner and bear the corresponding burden of proof. therefore, the online service platform should bear the burden of proof that it has prompted "multi-trip ticket type" and "no free baggage allowance" on the booking interface.

in this case, according to the evidence provided by the platform, it can be seen that the emails, itinerary confirmations, and text messages sent by the platform to passengers clearly stated that they were multi-trip air tickets, and there was no free baggage allowance. according to the evidence provided by the platform, it can be determined that the platform fulfilled the obligation to inform. in addition, the airline also displays baggage rules and time-based baggage purchase rules on its homepage.

in summary, the court rejected the plaintiff consumer’s claim.

the court reminded that at present, online ticket purchasing is increasingly becoming the preferred way for people to purchase tickets for travel. when purchasing tickets online, consumers should not only pay attention to various prompts from merchants, but also pay attention to retaining good evidence in case of an incident. in case of disputes, you can protect your legitimate rights and interests to the greatest extent and reduce losses.