Civil Case (N) 4843-03-20 Aviram Becker v. El Caspi Case – Supreme Court Israel Airlines Ltd. - part 45

Yaffa and Eran Botnauser (Plaintiffs Nos.  27-28)

1. In their statement of claim, they petitioned for expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $592.39 .
2. The affidavit said that they heard people say that anyone who can take care of himself for accommodation should do so. Find a hotel independently for $328.5 (Hotel Inigo from 20.10.19 to 21.10.19).  The hotel was reached by taxis that cost $219.9.  Renewal of a communication package at a cost of 149 ILS.  Payment for food and medication for migraine at a cost of $86.94 (four packs of Advil and two packs of Band-Aids for a total of $35.35 were purchased).
3. The testimony indicated that they did not send the receipts to El Al in order to receive expenses, even though they were familiar with El Al's letter. According to her testimony in the affidavit (paragraph 6), they remained in the field until about four o'clock, and therefore they should be compensated according to the cost of a voucher of $15 per person, that is, $30 for two people.  Therefore, a total of $630 must be paid (after deducting the amount of periods and free of charge for renewing a communication package).

Hadas Barashi Carmel, Alon Reuven Carmel and Michael Carmel (Plaintiffs Nos.  23-25):

1. In the statement of claim, they petitioned for expenses for food, drink, and taxis in the total amount of $1,428.77.
2. In the affidavit, it was clarified that an El Al representative explained to them what they should do, saying that anyone who can take care of accommodation and travel will take care of themselves independently, bring receipts and receive a refund for them. The captain advised them not to stay in the terminal in an attempt to get accommodation in a hotel, but to manage on their own as soon as possible.  For accommodation, the fee is $652.25 from 19.10 to 21.10.2019.  The arrival was done independently and the payment was $112.65, the cost of the food was $151.03 (supporting receipts attached).  Return taxis to the airport cost $475.49.  A receipt in the sum of ILS 440 was also attached for expenses for a dog boarding house between 19.10-22.10.2019 due to the cancellation of the flight.  Hadas was also given a receipt of ILS 90 for an urgent doctor's examination at the clinic on October 22, 2019.
3. In their testimony, they confirmed that they did not apply for exhaustion of proceedings upon landing in Israel in order to receive a refund, even though they knew about the letter (p. 106 of the transcript).  It also appears that there are a number of trips within the city due to rain (p.  107 of the minutes of March 13, 2024).  She confirmed that she heard that an EL AL representative said that anyone who can take care of accommodation and travel will take care of themselves independently.  She attached receipts for 5 different taxi rides.  According to the defendant, some of the receipts that were attached to the affidavit are irrelevant and in any case are below the sum claimed for refund, but the defendant does not specify how much was requested and how much the receipts indicate in relation to the part that is relevant, the same applies to taxi rides where it is not clear whether it is a trip to and from the airport (when there are receipts that are clear and the destination appears on them), when it is the duty of the Mishkan to do this in relation to a number of receipts in an attempt to refute them (as opposed to a case where the plaintiff presents printouts that cannot be known what is related Why is it that in order to compile the total amount of the debt and the court finds it difficult to determine findings that the plaintiff is supposed to clarify what belongs to what, which can also result in the dismissal of a claim since it is not possible to determine the amount of the debt or damage - something that does not exist in our case when the plaintiffs claim that all the receipts and their fixed sum are attributed to the expenses that are required to be repaid while the defendant is the one who seeks to refute them) and therefore, The court relies on the aforesaid as long as it is not concealed, while examining the relevance of the receipts with regard to the cross-examination.  According to the testimony of Hadas Barashi in the affidavit (paragraph 11), they remained in the field until about 4 p.m., and therefore they should be compensated according to the cost of a voucher of $15 per person, that is, $45 for three people.  Considering that the sum of $475 was paid only for a return taxi, in addition to the $112.65 which is the round-trip taxi, this is a high sum by all accounts for trips from the airport and the airport, taking into account the other plaintiffs, although it is a matter of four passengers and luggage, and therefore it is also necessary to explain 5 trips if they traveled in two taxis (and so they also claimed that the trips are from the airport and the airport) and that the defendant did not show otherwise - the said amount will be paid.  Therefore, the plaintiffs must be paid together $1,436.42 (when without the cost of the voucher the amount would have been $1,391.42 - less than the amount claimed).

Vered and Daniel Kazernowski (Plaintiffs Nos.  12-13):

1. In the statement of claim, they petitioned for expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the amount of $529.56.
2. In the affidavit, they said that they heard an El Al representative who asked that anyone who could take care of the accommodation himself do so and save the receipts for credit. Book a taxi independently to the hotel, cost $204, hotel cost $245.11 for bed and breakfast at Hotel Indigo from 20.10.19 to 21.10.19.  Food fee $70.
3. In their testimony, they confirmed that they did not contact El Al with the receipts because they did not think that this was appropriate compensation (pp. 35-36 of the transcript of March 13, 2024).  The plaintiff confirmed that the EL AL representative asked that anyone who could take care of the accommodation themselves do so and keep receipts for the credit.  Therefore, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs the sum of $519 (it was not claimed that no receipts were kept).

Hannah Frances (Plaintiff No.  33):

1. In the statement of claim, she petitioned for expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $503.06.
2. In her affidavit, she said that they were told that the flight was canceled and that they were trying to find a solution. They were told that there were not enough rooms to accommodate all the passengers on the flight in the hotels and were asked to find a solution to sleep independently.  Found a hotel independently using the phone of one of the security guards at the airport.  The receipt for accommodation is at Mai Ben Hamo since she is the one who paid for the hotel.  They found a hotel where there were only two rooms available, three couples who didn't know each other, and they slept together in the same room with no choice.  It should be noted that this is a hotel that was not provided by the defendant.  Food costs $111.86, shoes cost $65, clothing costs $89.97, and transportation services that were also paid for by her friend May Ben Hamo and she returned her share in Israel.
3. In her testimony, she stated that some of the receipts were with her friend, and that she did not file a claim herself because she thought she was entitled to a larger sum (pp. 62-65 of the transcript of March 13, 2024).  She knew that some of them had been transferred to hotels at El Al's expense.  The security guard gave her a phone.  They paid for her at the hotel (Mai Ben Hamo) because she had no money and also for taxi services.  The reception is in my name.  The defendant claimed that she did not attach any receipt to the alleged expenses when Ben Hamo's interrogation revealed that she had received a refund from the defendant for the hotel.  In her testimony, she stated that she had brought the receipts with her to present them in court (p.  61, paras.  28-29), but later it turned out that she had not, and some of them, according to her, were in May's name, even though she had paid.  In any event, the amounts for the food supported in the receipts are less than the amount claimed and even the estimated amount, and on the other hand, she declared that she paid for herself (as opposed to travel and a hotel) and therefore the defendant would pay her $83.  It is not clear from her testimony that the reception is in May's name, whether it was their initiative to add the others (when she testified that they formed six friends when they got off the plane) in light of their distress when she was with May Liron Ben Hamo in the room that she also paid for (and if so, did the other couple pay her as Hannah paid to Mi Liron when May Liron received a refund of the full amount of the room she paid or whether the same couple paid for the hotel a place where they booked the Is the room in advance or has it not been charged or refunded from the hotel?) When it is described that the people who slept in a single bed were the couple Daniel and Anat Levy, in their testimony they stated that the people who paid for the room were May Liron Ben Hamo and Hannah Frances (and May Liron for Hannah), and Daniel and Anat were the ones who also left and moved to another hotel the next day.  It should be noted that when May Liron Ben Hamo contacted the defendant and received the refund, she did not report the distress at the hotel.

Tal Gavish and Smadar Libby Kivelecki (Plaintiffs Nos.  23-52)

1. In the statement of claim, they petitioned for expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $637.2.
2. The affidavit showed that the cost of the hotel was $362 - the Hyatt Hotel between October 19-21, 2019. Arrival at the hotel was done independently, $65.  Personal economy includes food: $113.78, clothing at $117.4, and another taxi back to the airport at $78.
3. In his testimony, he stated that he did not apply for a refund because they believed that they should have received higher sums (p. 98 of the transcript of March 13, 2024).  Confirming that they were told that anyone who chooses to look for a hotel on their own will bring receipts for a refund.  He said that he did not trust El Al and therefore did not contact El Al with the receipts, since he also did not want compensation of $300 in the future, but what he deserves.  The defendant must pay him the sum of $618.78. 

Tomer Stauber and Tal Spiegler Stauber (Plaintiffs Nos.  45-46)

1. In the statement of claim, they petitioned for expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $1,027.92.
2. The affidavit said they were told they would try to staff people into hotels, but there weren't enough rooms and "first come, first served." After waiting in line to receive information, they decided to take a taxi at 4:30 and close the hotel independently after being told that they would take care of themselves and bring receipts that would credit them for them. The cost of the two nights at the independently selected Park Line Hotel is $506.15, shuttle services are $195.33, food expenses are $326.44.  It should be noted that as part of this sum, they purchased a bottle of wine for $78.
3. In their testimony, they confirmed that they did not request reimbursement from El Al for expenses, and did not know about receipt of vouchers (p. 39 of the transcript of 13.032.24).  He confirmed that while they were waiting in line to receive information, they decided to take a taxi and close a hotel after being told to take care of themselves and bring receipts that would credit them for it.  The plaintiff confirmed that they distributed food vouchers "at some distance from us.  There were thousands of queues there.  We don't know why we didn't go get watchers." The defendant claimed that no relevant receipts were found for the sum claimed in the statement of claim.  However, receipts were identified, but it is possible that in the final summary it does not reach the amount claimed.  In any case, you should also recognize $30 for a voucher when we waited until 4:30 a.m.  at the airport.  The plaintiffs must be paid a total of $980. 

Zvi Brinzweig, Yuval Brinzweig, Anati Brinzweig (Plaintiffs Nos.  48-50)

1. In the statement of claim, they petitioned for expenses for food, drink, and taxis in the total amount of $158.67. For a ride from the Radisson Hotel to the Brooklyn Lodge, $42.67.  $95 for a ride from Brooklyn Lodge to pick up your luggage and from there to JFK Airport.  For food -21$ Breakfast to Zvika BarJenzweig at the Radisson Hotel.
2. According to what was stated in the affidavit, they received a hotel that the defendant arranged near the airport. The room they were offered was adapted to a double room as it only had a double bed.  Three people had to sleep in one double bed.  Describe the conditions in the room as sub-conditions.  The entire time the hotel was not given meals and they had to travel into town to eat.  Take care of yourself for your personal finances, including food at a cost of $63.67.  No receipts were attached except for Zvika's affidavit in the amount of $21 at the Radisson Hotel.  He handwritten a drink for the room in the morning when the Radisson was a hotel that the defendant provided.  The cost of travel to the airport is $95, and to the city is $42.67.
3. The testimony revealed that in front of El Al, which claims that meals were provided at the hotel he received, the plaintiffs claimed that they did not. He confronted the fact that they received 2 rooms from El Al when they were relatively spacious rooms and with meals, but he claimed that they were three people without an extra bed and in fact the room is a double for 3 people (when it is not clear if they were supposed to get 2 rooms and 2 rooms were booked, why did he not contact the station manager in real time and why he did not contact the defendant in Israel, All the more so she was the one who provided the room, and if, according to her records, two were provided to the family members and there was a change, as with the issue of hotel obligations, how could she arrange it in real time?).  They got a shuttle from the airport.  EL AL representatives suggested that they manage independently and present receipts.  He reiterated that there were no meals in the hotel (but it is not clear the receipt of $21 and whether he inquired positively and was told that there were no meals?, since in any case if there is a meal then you don't have to pay).  The defendant claims that there is no dispute that plaintiffs 48-50 received transportation and accommodation in a hotel at the expense of El Al.  Plaintiff 48 did not attach receipts to prove the alleged expenses and did not know how to answer the question regarding the receipts or the exact amount he demanded and admitted that he did not attach receipts and therefore argued that the demand to receive any refund from the defendant should be rejected out of hand.

Since according to the testimony of Mr. Birzweig (p.  69, s.  12 and what is stated in his affidavit in paragraph 6), they remained in the field until about 4 o'clock, they should be compensated according to the cost of a voucher in the sum of $15 per person and $45 for three people.  Given that even if there are no receipts, they demand $84.67 for the food when it comes to three people who declare that they did not eat, even though they did not inform the station manager who did take care in real time regarding the stay at a hotel where it turned out that the obligation had not been arranged - the defendant will charge for it and travel $137.67 - that was a total of $222.34.  In total, the defendant will pay the plaintiffs $267.  It was not claimed that he did not keep receipts and that he spent more, but rather that he did not attach receipts and it was not claimed that he spent more.