Ravid Katmor, Odelia Katmor, Haim Heiman and Rachel Heiman (Plaintiffs Nos. 31-32, 40-41)
- The statement of claim stated for Odelia and Ravid Katmor - expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $584.4. For Chaim Heiman and Rachel Heiman - expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $674.72.
- In the affidavit, Mr. Katmore stated that they had asked for a hotel as the captain had promised. The clerk said that the defendant's room allowances had run out and that they should return to New York on their own and find a hotel for up to $250. Find a hotel independently, the Crowne Plaza Hotel, and it was also done independently. Hotel expenses $420.10. Travel expenses including return from the city center to the airport (when they also paid for the shuttle from the airport): $70, expenses for food $54.16.
- In his testimony, he stated that he knew about the defendant's letter, but that he was not interested in presenting receipts for refund and claimed a greater consideration. Messer when it was relevant for them then there were no rooms left for them but confirmed that others had accepted it and for them it was no longer relevant. We stayed at Crowne Plaza for $420 for two rooms (for him and his mother and the other room for the grandparents, the who were all together and testified to the assistance services they all received), food receipts and a message that they shared a taxi together. The defendant claimed that no receipts were attached and there were no receipts for the expenses alleged to plaintiffs 40-41. As for plaintiffs 40-41, the Heimans, no affidavit of primary witness was filed on their behalf and no receipts were attached attesting to the alleged expenses, and therefore the defendant argues that their demand for any reimbursement should be rejected out of hand. According to the testimony of Mr. Katmur (p. 88, s. 2), 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, i.e., $60 for four people, as part of her obligation to provide assistance. The payment for the hotel was a different appeal Odelia Katmor and it is clear that the defendant is obligated to provide assistance services to its passengers - even if they did not submit an affidavit of the main witness when the indemnity will be transferred to the person who paid for them, Mrs. Odelia their daughter. Therefore, the defendant will pay the sum of $604 through plaintiffs 31-32.
Rona Lotan (Plaintiff No. 18)
- In the statement of claim, she petitioned for reimbursement of expenses for food and drink, taxis and a hotel in the total amount of $396.97.
- In the affidavit, she said that they asked anyone who could manage on their own to do so and receive refunds for accommodation up to $200 per night. She stayed in a friend's apartment for the night of October 19, but for the night of October 20-21, she stayed at the Columbus Hotel, where she came independently. Taxi cost: $105.08, hotel accommodation cost $243.93, personal economy and food expenses $45.98. She claims to buy softener and laundry detergent since she did not have the appropriate clothing items from the sleeves of her clothes, she was adjusted to the number of days she planned to stay in the city, but she did not have receipts nor did she specify the amount.
- In her testimony, she said that they were told that whoever could manage should manage on his own. She was explicitly informed by the El Al station manager that anyone who did not receive a hotel on behalf of the defendant would be entitled to compensation in the amount of $200 per night, but she did not submit receipts to the defendant (p. 74 of the transcript). The defendant notes that if she had contacted the defendant as requested, then the refund in the total amount of $396.97 would have been made as promised.
The defendant will pay the plaintiff the sum of $397 (as she states that she would also agree to refund, even if there is a surplus of $2, when according to the line presented by the defendant she would have indemnified for that basic need, for the explanation she gave, when she tried to reduce the damage, and it is clear that she was not left with fabric softener and powder - taking into account the questions asked by the defendant regarding the purchase of clothing for tens or hundreds of dollars).