|
|
|
Abdul Waheed v. China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited (Dispute over International Air Passenger Transport Contract)
|
|
阿卜杜勒·瓦希德诉东方航空公司国际航空旅客运输合同纠纷案
|
|
|
|
Abdul Waheed v. China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited (Dispute over International Air Passenger Transport Contract)
(Dispute over International Air Passenger Transport Contract)
阿卜杜勒·瓦希德诉东方航空公司国际航空旅客运输合同纠纷案
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abdul Waheed v. China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited (Dispute over International Air Passenger Transport Contract)@#
Plaintiff: Abdul Waheed, male, 34, native of Pakistan, dwelling at Shuiqing No.1 Village, Minhang District, Shanghai.@#
Defendant: China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited, domiciled at International Airport Avenue, Pudong New Area, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Li Fenghua, board chairman of the Corporation.@#
Abdul Waheed was in dispute with China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as CE Airlines) over an international air passenger transport contract, and brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Pudong New Area of Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Pudong Court).@#
Abdul alleged: He himself, his wife, his daughter and his mother-in-law (the other three people brought lawsuits in separate cases) planned to depart from Shanghai by air on December 31, 2004 and fly to Karachi. Since there was no direct flight, CE Airlines arranged Abdul, et al, to take its flight from Shanghai to Hong Kong first, and then to take the flight of Hong Kong Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Cathay Airways) to fly to Karachi. For this purpose, Abdul paid all the fares from Shanghai to Karachi, while CE Airlines also issued special invoices of international air passenger transport and the plane tickets to Abdul. On December 31, 2004, Abdul waited at Shanghai Pudong Airport to take CE Airlines' MU703 flight. Usually, the flight takes off in Shanghai at 11:00 AM, and lands in Hong Kong at 13:30. However, on that day, the flight was delayed for more than 3 hours, and did not arrive at Hong Kong until 16:30. When waiting at Pudong Airport, Abdul was aware that he would miss the connecting flight of Cathay Airways, and thus asked CE Airlines repeatedly about how to deal with the matter. CE Airlines' employee gave Abdul 4 “Registration Forms on Endurance”, and Abdul's wife filled out the forms and handed them to CE Airlines. Before boarding the airplane, Abdul asked again about how to deal with the matter after arriving at Hong Kong. CE Airlines' employee told him that since he had filled out the “Registration Forms on Endurance”, they would help resolve the matter. As a matter of fact, after the MU703 flight arrived at Hong Kong, Cathay Airways' flight had left. At Hong Kong Airport, a stewardess brought Abdul, et al, to the counter handling flight delays and then left. Later, a CE Airlines' employee came up. Abdul asked again about how to deal with the matter, but was told that one solution was to wait at the airport for another three days and then take Cathay Airways' next flight at Abdul's own expenses; another solution was that Abdul pay for another airline company's air tickets to Karachi at the charge of 25,000 HKD. Abdul refused to adopt these two solutions, and the employee no longer paid attention to him. His wife had to call CE Airlines, but was told that the relevant employees of CE Airlines had finished his work. His wife had no choice but to push over the airport's fence. Immediately, the security guards and the policemen of Hong Kong Airport came up to inquire. With the help of the security guards and the policemen, Abdul finally had no choice but to buy Emirates Airline's air tickets for the trip from Hong Kong via Dubai to Karachi as he was bringing his 8-month old daughter, for which he spent 4,721 HKD of additional air ticket fares and 759 HKD of luggage ticket fares, totaling 5,480 HKD. When the flight arrived at Karachi, they had been delayed for 15 hours, and the luggage could not arrive simultaneously. Abdul held that, CE Airlines had breached the contract as it failed to announce the flight delay in advance and to carry Abdul from Shanghai to Hong Kong in time; after the flight was delayed, CE Airlines broke its commitments by refusing to re-arrange Abdul's journey from Hong Kong to Karachi, and failed to inform that Abdul could have the air tickets endorsed or transfer to a connected flight, thus CE Airlines had gross faults. CE Airlines' acts had caused losses to Abdul, and should bear the liability for compensation. Abdul requested Pudong Court to order CE Airlines to compensate 5,990 Yuan of economic losses, to disclose its normal flight rate and complaint rate of passengers as it had promised, and to bear the litigation costs for the present case.@#
．．．．．． | | 阿卜杜勒·瓦希德诉东方航空公司国际航空旅客运输合同纠纷案@#
原告：阿卜杜勒·瓦希德(ABDUL WAHEED)，男，34岁，巴基斯坦国籍，住上海市闵行区水清一村。 @#
被告：中国东方航空股份有限公司，住所地：上海市浦东新区国际机场大道。@#
法定代表人：李丰华，该公司董事长。@#
原告阿卜杜勒·瓦希德(以下简称阿卜杜勒)因与被告中国东方航空股份有限公司(以下简称东方航空公司)发生国际航空旅客运输合同纠纷，向上海市浦东新区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告阿卜杜勒诉称：原告与妻子、女儿、岳母(此三人另外起诉)原定2004年 12月31日从上海乘飞机到卡拉奇。由于没有直达航班，故被告东方航空公司为原告等人安排的航程是先乘坐该公司航班从上海到香港，再乘坐香港国泰航空公司航班到卡拉奇。为此，原告支付了从上海到卡拉奇的全程费用，该公司也向原告出具了国际航空旅客运输专用发票及客票。2004年12月31日，原告在上海浦东机场等候乘坐东方航空公司的MU703航班。该航班正常情况下从上海起飞的时间是11点，到香港降落的时间是13点30分。但该航班当天足足延误了3个多小时，直至16点 30分才到香港。在浦东机场候机时，原告知道会错过国泰航空公司的衔接航班，曾反复询问该如何处理。东方航空公司的工作人员给了原告4张《续航情况登记表》，原告的妻子将该表填好后交还给该公司。登机前，原告又一再询问到香港后该怎么办?东方航空公司的工作人员告知，由于原告填好了《续航情况登记表》，他们会帮助解决。MU703航班到香港后，国泰航空公司的航班已经飞离。在香港机场，一位服务小姐将原告等人带到航班延误处理柜台后就离开了。后来来了一名东方航空公司的工作人员，原告再次向其询问该怎么办，被告知：一个方案是让原告等人在机场里等候三天，然后搭乘国泰航空公司下一个航班，三天内费用自理；另一个方案是由原告出资另行购买其他航空公司的机票至卡拉奇，费用为2．5万港元。原告表示无法接受这两个方案，该工作人员便不再理睬原告。原告的妻子只得给东方航空公司打电话，但被告知该公司有关工作人员已经下班。无奈之下，原告的妻子推倒机场护栏，引来香港机场保安和警察了解情况。经香港机场保安和警察交涉，原告由于携带着8个月大的女儿，迫于无奈，最终购买了阿联酋航空公司从香港经迪拜到卡拉奇的机票，为此付出机票款4721港元、行李票款759港元，合计5480港元。到达卡拉奇时，比原定航程延误了15个小时，且行李也不能同机到达。原告认为，东方航空公司事先未通知航班延误，未按时将原告从上海送往香港，已经构成违约；航班延误后，东方航空公司又违背自己作出的承诺，拒绝为原告重新安排从香港到卡拉奇的航程，也未告知原告可以改签或者转机，存在重大过错。东方航空公司的行为给原告造成了相当的损失，应当承担赔偿责任。请求判令东方航空公司赔偿原告的经济损失人民币5990元，判令东方航空公司按照承诺对外公布航班的正常率、旅客投诉率，并负担本案诉讼费。@#
原告阿卜杜勒提交以下证据：@#
1．票面金额为人民币22 647元的国际航空旅客运输专用发票和国际航空旅客运输机票、登记牌，用以证明阿卜杜勒交付了从上海到卡拉奇的全程机票款，与被告东方航空公司建立了国际航空旅客运输合同关系，并于2004年12月31日乘坐了东方航空公司从上海飞往香港的MU703航班；@#
2．票面金额为4721港元的机票、759港元的行李票以及登记牌，用以证明阿卜杜勒在香港不得不再次付费购票，乘坐阿联酋航空公司的航班经迪拜到卡拉奇，比原定航程晚到15个小时；@#
3．阿卜杜勒订票时发出的写有具体要求的传真件，用以证明东方航空公司明知阿卜杜勒携带着一名8个月大的婴儿，并且明知阿卜杜勒的航程将在香港中转；@#
4．东方航空公司服务质量部2005年 5月23日就阿卜杜勒投诉发出的处理结果函，用以证明东方航空公司承认阿卜杜勒乘坐的MU703航班延误，因而导致阿卜杜勒及家属到香港后错过国泰航空公司去卡拉奇的航班，但拒绝赔偿；@#
5．《中国民航》杂志刊登的《“2004年旅客话民航”，用户评价结果揭晓》一文，用以证明东方航空公司制定并公布过《旅客服务承诺制》，承诺按季公布该公司的航班正常率，狠抓航班延误问题，但东方航空公司未公布此次航班延误，违背了自己的承诺；@#
6．《劳动报》2005年7月20日刊登的《消保委下月“进谏”民航总局》一文，用以证明航班延误问题已成投诉热点。@#
被告东方航空公司辩称：原告阿卜杜勒所持的是国际航空连续运输机票，整个航程由被告和国泰航空公司各自负责，被告承担的是上海--香港段运输责任。阿卜杜勒与被告之间不存在全程运输合同关系，故被告对全程运输不承担责任，只要将阿卜杜勒送到香港，被告在该合同中的义务就已经履行。2004年12月31日的 NIU703航班延误，是天气原因造成的，属于不可抗力，被告对该航班延误不承担责任。阿卜杜勒当天可以选择退票，也可以选择登机。阿卜杜勒在明知会错过国泰航空公司航班的情形下自愿选择登机，故应当自己承担责任。为查清本案事实，申请追加国泰航空公司为本案的第三人。@#
被告东方航空公司提交以下证据：@#
1．浦东机场运行中心的运行情况简报，用以证明2004年12月30日至31日，由于下雪、结冰，浦东机场大量航班延误；@#
2．中国民用航空华东地区管理局气象中心出具的天气实况报告，用以证明2004年12月30日至12月31日浦东机场的天气情况；@#
3．机场候机楼管理分公司服务部出具的证明，用以证明东方航空公司已经就 2004年12月31日MU703航班的延误情况进行了广播告知；@#
4．航班不正常服务费用结算清单，用以证明东方航空公司已经为延误的旅客提供了饮料和餐饮服务；@#
5．空白《航班延误信息登记表》，用以证明原告阿卜杜勒当时填写的表格项目；@#
6．民航华东函[2002]538号文，用以证明阿卜杜勒发票上注明的机票售票点不属于东方航空公司管辖。@#
法庭主持了庭审质证。被告东方航空公司认为：原告阿卜杜勒提交的发票上所盖的发票专用章是伪造的，被告下属没有票上所列的售票处；阿卜杜勒提交的机票，出票人是香港国泰航空公司，被告只承担该机票中上海--香港段的运输责任；阿卜杜勒的证据2虽然证明了阿卜杜勒到达卡拉奇的时间，但就被告而言，MU703航班只是由于天气原因延误了3个小时到达香港，与阿卜杜勒到达卡拉奇的时间无关；阿卜杜勒的证据3虽然真实，但不能证明阿卜杜勒的整段航程都由被告负责；证据 5是媒体言论，不能证明被告公布过“旅客服务承诺制”，且此事也与阿卜杜勒的诉请无关；证据6与本案无关。阿卜杜勒认为：东方航空公司提交的证据1，没有证明12月31日的天气情况不能起飞；证据2虽然证明2004年12月30日浦东机场因下雪关闭了一个小时，而31日无雪，应该全天都可以起飞；证据3证明东方航空公司广播飞机延误信息的时间为10点58分，仅比原定起飞时间早2分钟，即使该公司确实广播通知了航班延误信息，这样的通知也是存在瑕疵的；证据4不能表明东方航空公司对航班延误的旅客尽到了义务，因为原告是伊斯兰教徒，无法接受东方航空公司提供的非清真食品；证据5不是东方航空公司在浦东机场叫原告填写的表格，原告当时填写的是《续航情况登记表》；对证据6的真实性无法确认。@#
被告东方航空公司庭审中表示，原告阿卜杜勒于2004年12月31日在浦东机场填写的表格已经找不到了。@#
经质证、认证，上海市浦东新区人民法院查明：@#
2004年12月29日，原告阿卜杜勒购买了一张由香港国泰航空公司作为出票人的机票，机票列明的航程安排为：12月31日11点，从上海乘坐被告东方航空公司的 MU703航班至香港；同日16点，乘坐香港国泰航空公司的航班至卡拉奇。机票背面条款注明，该合同应遵守华沙公约所指定的有关责任的规则和限制。该机票为打折票，机票上注明不得退票、不得转签。2004年12月30日15点，浦东机场地区开始下中雪，22点至23点机场被迫关闭1小时，导致该日104个航班延误。次日因需处理飞机除冰、补班调配等问题，从浦东机场起飞的航班有43架次被取消、142架次被延误，出港正常率只有24．1％。当日，MU703航班也由于天气原因延误3小时22分钟起飞，以至阿卜杜勒一行到达香港机场后，未能赶上国泰航空公司飞往卡拉奇的衔接航班。@#
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1000.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|