Civil Case (N) 4843-03-20 Aviram Becker v. El Caspi Case – Supreme Court Israel Airlines Ltd. - part 53

As stated, it turned out that the plaintiffs never contacted the defendant prior to filing the claim.  The plaintiffs also do not claim that they contacted her in the statement of claim.  The letter that was attached is what they were updated (they did not answer) upon disembarkation and the defendant also did not attach a response except for a response to a specific request for a specific case of the person who did contact them (the plaintiffs did not attach it to the statement of claim nor did they update that some of them were reimbursed for expenses, even though those plaintiffs did not claim expenses).  Even after the argument was raised in the summaries, when the plaintiffs asked in advance to be given permission to submit summaries of reply but did not submit at the end of the day, they did not deal with this claim of failure to exhaust the proceedings and the written requirement (nor did they argue for an expansion of the front).  Since the written requirement is a material requirement for the purpose of filing a claim for compensation, for example, and it is also part of the procedural duty of good faith to apply first to the filing of the claim, including to submit the receipts, as requested.  Therefore, on the face of it, it is not impossible that even if there was a written request prior to taking proceedings in a manner that meets the formal requirement that allows the filing of a claim for exemplary compensation under section 11 of the Law, from a material point of view, the refusal of a passenger to produce receipts to prove his expenses after she has agreed in principle to reimburse expenses when he is asked to do so may negate the determination that the company "knowingly" breached its duty and thus lead to the rejection of a compensation component, for example, for failure to provide assistance services.  When the reimbursements are for the assistance services that he himself funded, and thus he actually prevents her from fulfilling her obligation - even if retroactively, when there are situations such as the matter of food or returning by taxi to the airport, which has no other way in that given situation than to indemnify, and the burden of proving that the benefits were not given "knowingly" is on the passenger, and prior written contact is the main evidence to prove that the company is aware of the demand (see section 11 of the Aviation Services Law and a judgment in the case of Shimron v.  El Al above).  Therefore, where an airline recognizes its obligation to reimburse expenses and expresses a willingness to pay reimbursement of expenses that are nothing more than retroactive assistance services or acknowledgment that it was supposed to provide and did not provide and seeks to restore the situation "to its previous state" as if it had not been taken out of the passenger's pocket due to the disruption of the flight and the passenger refrains from presenting them and chooses to file a claim instead, then this makes it difficult to determine that the breach occurred knowingly that justifies compensation, for example, At the very least, the matter has an impact on the scope of the compensation, where it was awarded.  If compensation, for example, is of a punitive nature and is intended to deter ignorance, it is difficult to impose it when she asks for receipts for the purpose of making the payment and the passenger refuses.