Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 23:16:23 GMT -5
Changing a flight and notifying passengers more than 72 hours in advance does not constitute compensation for moral damages. Based on this understanding, the 7th Special Civil and Consumer Relations Court of São Luís rejected the request of a passenger who filed a lawsuit against VRG Linhas Aéreas S/A for changes to her flights.
reproduction
The return flights were changed and the passenger was notified in
advance
According to the process, the author purchased the flights with the aim of taking a trip to Miami (USA). The departure was scheduled for February 17, 2020, departing from Fortaleza, a non-stop flight, scheduled to arrive in Florida on the same date, and the return to Brazil scheduled for February 28, 2020.
However, on November 1, 2019, she received a notice that her outbound flight to Miami had been canceled and that she had been reassigned to a flight with a stop in Brasília. The passenger also noted that, on January 28, 2020, she decided to check the status of her flights again, and discovered that the return leg, towards Brazil, had also been canceled by the company, and the company had not sent any kind of communication. She also found that she was reassigned to a flight on February 27, 2020, that is, one day earlier than initially purchased.
The author claims that she contacted Portugal Mobile Number List the airline and that the company did not offer her any other flight option. Thus, she was forced to accept the least inconvenient option, unlike what was previously contracted, which ended up causing the author extra expense, as she had to hire a transfer to get to Orlando airport. She added that the two cancellations were due to reasons she was unaware of, as no clarification was provided by the company.
The airline, in its defense, argued that it informed the passenger in advance of the boarding date and that there would be no surprises at the time of boarding, as she would have enough time to plan, avoiding any loss or inconvenience. It also reports that the author received all the information pertinent to the changes and claimed that there is no need to talk about compensable moral damages of any nature.
When analyzing the files, judge Maria José França Ribeiro observed that, in the case in question, there was compliance with the provisions of Resolution 400/2016 of the National Civil Aviation Agency (Anac), that is, the author was informed of the flight change more than 72 hours in advance.
"Analyzing the case files in detail, it is understood that the situation described does not go beyond the sphere of mere unpleasantness, and there is no need to talk about compensation for moral damages (..) It is known that in the passenger air transport contract, the carrier is subject to the scheduled and contracted times and itineraries, under penalty of being liable for losses and damages, except for reasons of force majeure (…) On the other hand, it is known that air transport is subject to several factors that may lead to changes in flights (…) In view of this, Anac, the agency that regulates aviation in the national territory, brings some rules for when there is a unilateral change to the contract", he explains.
For the judge, if there was any type of refusal on the part of the defendant, then this would clearly constitute a situation of failure to provide a compensable service. "In fact, the author was informed about the flight change about three months before the trip, and even though she had not been informed about the return flight change, she became aware of the situation just over a month before the initially scheduled date. (…) Thus, the complainant could accept the change, request another flight, at a time that best suits her, or even request a refund of the ticket. And as in the process there is no administrative complaint with the defendant requesting a refund, and it was clear that the complainant consented to the new flight offered by the defendant, there is no need to talk about moral damages", he concluded.