Decision No. 8-C-A-2019

SUMMARY

[1] The applicants filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) regarding the delay of and damage to their baggage. The delay and damage occurred while the baggage was being transported from Canada to Sri Lanka by Qatar Airways and American Airlines.

[2] The applicants are seeking compensation in the amount of US$2,120 for expenses that they claim to have incurred while they were waiting for their delayed baggage to be delivered to them in Sri Lanka. This amount is reimbursement for replacement medication, toiletries and clothing as well as hotel and transportation expenses.

[3] The Agency will address the following issues:

1. Which carrier, Qatar Airways or American Airlines, is liable for damages arising from the damage to and delay of the applicants’ baggage?
2. Did the carrier properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its international tariff regarding the damage to the applicants’ baggage? If the carrier did not properly apply its tariff, what remedy, if any, is available to the applicants?
3. Did the carrier properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its international tariff regarding the delay of the applicants’ baggage? If the carrier did not properly apply its tariff, what remedy, if any, is available to the applicants?

[4] For the reasons outlined below, the Agency finds that:

1. Qatar Airways and American Airlines are jointly and severally liable;
2. Qatar Airways properly applied the terms and conditions set out in its International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. QR-1, NTA(A) No. 524 D.O.T. No. 823 (Qatar Airways’ Tariff) regarding the damage to the applicants’ baggage; and,
3. Qatar Airways did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its Tariff regarding the delay of the applicants’ baggage.

[5] Given that the applicants took action against Qatar Airways for the damages arising from the damage to and delay of their baggage, the Agency orders Qatar Airways to compensate the applicants in the amount of US$900, specifically US$800 for replacement clothing and US$100 for replacement toiletries, all purchased by the applicants while awaiting their delayed baggage. Qatar Airways is to pay this amount to the applicants as soon as possible and no later than March 26, 2019.

BACKGROUND

[6] The applicants purchased the following return tickets for travel from Toronto, Ontario to Colombo, Sri Lanka:

• Toronto to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with American Airlines, departing at 7:30 a.m. on August 5, 2017;

• Philadelphia to Doha, Qatar with Qatar Airways, departing at 10:40 a.m. on August 5, 2017; and,

• Doha to Colombo, Sri Lanka with Qatar Airways, departing at 8:00 a.m. on August 6, 2017.

[7] The applicants’ first flight was cancelled and they were rescheduled on a new itinerary with connections through Orlando, Florida; Philadelphia; and Doha. As a result, the applicants arrived in Colombo on August 7, 2017, but eight pieces of their baggage did not arrive with them. The applicants stayed in Colombo for two nights to wait for their baggage before moving on to their final destination, Jaffna, Sri Lanka. The applicants received one of their missing pieces of baggage while they were staying in Colombo and the remaining seven pieces were delivered to them in Jaffna. The applicants submit that “almost all” of the seven remaining pieces were damaged.

[8] On August 12, 2017, the applicants filed a complaint with Qatar Airways. Qatar Airways replaced the applicants’ damaged baggage with five new pieces of baggage.

[9] The applicants are seeking compensation in the amount of US$2,120 for expenses that they incurred while their baggage was delayed; specifically:

• US$400 for the cost of two nights in a hotel in Colombo and the cost of cancelling their hotel in Jaffna;

• US$150 for transportation cancellation expenses;

• US$270 for replacement medication;

• US$100 for replacement toiletries, including diapers and sunscreen; and,

• US$1,200 for replacement clothing.

[10] The pleadings on the application were opened on April 13, 2018. Qatar Airways filed its answer to the application on May 4, 2018, but American Airlines did not file an answer. The applicants filed a reply to Qatar Airways’ answer on June 18, 2018.

THE LAW

[11] Subsection 110(4) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (ATR) requires that a carrier operating an international service apply the terms and conditions of carriage set out in its tariff.

[12] If the Agency finds that an air carrier has failed to properly apply its tariff, section 113.1 of the ATR empowers the Agency to direct the air carrier to

1. take the corrective measures that the Agency considers appropriate; and
2. pay compensation for any expense incurred by a person adversely affected by its failure to apply the fares, rates, charges or terms and conditions set out in the tariff.

[13] With respect to a carrier’s liability regarding baggage, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air – Montreal Convention (Montreal Convention) applies to the applicants’ travel itinerary and states:

17(2) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage. In the case of unchecked baggage, including personal items, the carrier is liable if the damage resulted from its fault or that of its servants or agents. [Emphasis added]

19 The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures. [Emphasis added]

22(2) In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1 131 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger’s actual interest in delivery at destination. [Emphasis added]

31(2) In the case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within seven days from the date of receipt in the case of checked baggage and fourteen days from the date of receipt in the case of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the baggage or cargo have been placed at his or her disposal. [Emphasis added]

36(3) As regards baggage or cargo, the passenger or consignor will have a right of action against the first carrier, and the passenger or consignee who is entitled to delivery will have a right of action against the last carrier, and further, each may take action against the carrier which performed the carriage during which the destruction, loss, damage or delay took place. These carriers will be jointly and severally liable to the passenger or to the consignor or consignee. [Emphasis added]

[14] Both Qatar Airways’ Tariff and American Airlines’ International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff No. AA‑1, NTA(A) No. 273 C.A.B. No. 465 incorporate the Montreal Convention by reference in Rules 55(B)(1) and 55(C)(4), respectively.

[15] Rule 190(D) of Qatar Airways’ Tariff sets out the terms and conditions regarding rush or expedite baggage and states:

1. 1. Rush Baggage, is baggage which has been mishandled by a station due to reasons beyond the passengers control (e.g. payload restriction, non-availability of space, oversight etc.) and shall be delivered to the passenger.

1. WHICH CARRIER, QATAR AIRWAYS OR AMERICAN AIRLINES, IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE DAMAGE TO AND DELAY OF THE APPLICANTS’ BAGGAGE?

Positions of the parties and findings of fact

THE APPLICANTS

[16] The applicants state that they filed this application against Qatar Airways because their baggage was delivered to them by Qatar Airways four days late, and when their baggage arrived, almost all of the pieces were damaged.

[17] The applicants assert that two days after their baggage was delivered to them, they filed a complaint with Qatar Airways, including a Passenger Property Questionnaire which contained the list of expenses that the applicants incurred as a result of their baggage being delayed.

QATAR AIRWAYS

[18] Qatar Airways argues that American Airlines should be liable for any damages incurred from the delayed baggage.

[19] Qatar Airways confirms that the applicants’ original flight from Toronto to Philadelphia was cancelled, so American Airlines reprotected the applicants on the new itinerary with connections in Orlando, Philadelphia and Doha. Qatar Airways indicates that, as a result of their flight cancellation and new itinerary, the applicants arrived in Colombo one day later than the arrival date indicated in their original itinerary.

[20] Qatar Airways does not contest the applicants’ assertion that eight pieces of their baggage were missing upon their arrival in Colombo. However, Qatar Airways contends that the delay of the baggage was caused by American Airlines such that Qatar Airways did not have control over the recovery of the baggage. Qatar Airways states that the first missing piece of baggage was located in Orlando and the remaining seven pieces of baggage were located in Miami, Florida. Qatar Airways indicates that the baggage tags on the delayed pieces of baggage were printed and appear to have been affixed to the pieces of baggage by American Airlines.

[21] Qatar Airways argues that Article 19 of the Montreal Convention provides that a carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo, but a carrier is not liable for damage occasioned by delay if the carrier proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for them to take such measures. Qatar Airways submits that, in this case, the delay of the applicants’ baggage originated in Orlando and Miami, when the baggage was still in the care and control of American Airlines. Qatar Airways also submits that as such, it was impossible for it to take measures to avoid the delayed arrival of the baggage. Qatar Airways contends that when the baggage arrived in Colombo, it was delivered to the applicants as soon as possible.

[22] Furthermore, Qatar Airways indicates that the applicants’ itinerary involved successive carriage where American Airlines was the carrier operating the first portion of the itinerary and Qatar Airways was the carrier operating the last portion of the itinerary. Qatar Airways states that Article 36 of the Montreal Convention is applicable to the applicants’ travel itinerary and addresses which carrier is liable for damages incurred by the applicants from delayed and damaged baggage. Qatar Airways states that it asserts its right to claim recourse from American Airlines for any damages payable by Qatar Airways under Article 37 of the Montreal Convention.

[23] In conclusion, Qatar Airways submits that if the Agency determines that the applicants are entitled to compensation under the Montreal Convention for expenses incurred as a result of their delayed baggage, compensation should be paid by American Airlines because it was the carrier responsible for the delay of the applicants’ baggage.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[24] It is uncontested that the applicants travelled from Toronto to Colombo with both Qatar Airways and American Airlines, that seven pieces of the applicants’ baggage were delayed, and that some of that delayed baggage was damaged. The applicants also submitted their Passenger Property Questionnaire to Qatar Airways on August 12, 2017, five days after they landed in Colombo.

Analysis and determination

[25] Qatar Airways contends that the delay of the applicants’ baggage occurred while the baggage was still in the care and control of American Airlines such that Qatar Airways should not be liable for the damage caused by the delay in this case because “it was impossible for them to take measures to avoid the delayed arrival of the baggage” as per Article 19 of the Convention; however, the Agency finds that Qatar Airways did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Qatar Airways filed the Passenger Name Record (PNR) and photos of the applicants’ baggage tags in support of its claim that the applicants’ missing pieces of baggage were located in Orlando and Miami, but neither show that the missing baggage was found in Orlando and Miami and rerouted to Colombo by American Airlines.

[26] In any event, as indicated above, the Montreal Convention applies to this case, both Qatar Airways’ and American Airlines’ international tariffs incorporate the Montreal Convention by reference, and Article 36(3) of the Montreal Convention provides that passengers have the right to take action against the last carrier. Following the provision, the Agency finds that Qatar Airways and American Airlines are jointly and severally liable.

[27] The applicants filed their Passenger Property Questionnaire with Qatar Airways within 21 days from the date that the baggage was returned to them, and Article 36(3) of the Montreal Convention allows the applicants to take action against Qatar Airways. Therefore, the Agency finds that, if the Agency determines that Qatar Airways did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Qatar Airways’ Tariff, Qatar Airways will be required to pay compensation for damages arising from the applicants’ damaged and delayed baggage.

[28] With respect to Qatar Airways’ assertion to claim recourse from American Airlines under section 37 of the Montreal Convention, this is a matter to be addressed amongst the carriers themselves.

2. DID THE CARRIER PROPERLY APPLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ITS INTERNATIONAL TARIFF REGARDING THE DAMAGE TO THE APPLICANTS’ BAGGAGE? IF THE CARRIER DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY ITS TARIFF, WHAT REMEDY, IF ANY, IS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANTS?

Positions of the parties and findings of fact

THE APPLICANTS

[29] The applicants submit that when they received their remaining seven pieces of baggage in Jaffna, “almost all” of the baggage were damaged. The applicants state that Qatar Airways replaced their damaged baggage with five new pieces of baggage: three medium suitcases and two small suitcases, but the quality of the new baggage was mediocre in comparison with the baggage that was damaged.

[30] In response to a statement made by Qatar Airways that the applicants did not submit a claim in their application for compensation for theft or missing items, the applicants state that two bottles of perfume were missing from their baggage when they received it from Qatar Airways. However, the applicants confirm that they cannot prove that the loss was due to the actions of Qatar Airways and that they are not seeking compensation for the perfume.

QATAR AIRWAYS

[31] Qatar Airways states that its records indicate that five of the applicants’ pieces of baggage were reported as damaged upon arrival in Jaffna. Qatar Airways maintains that the applicants submitted a complaint regarding damage to their baggage and, as a result, Qatar provided the applicants with five replacement pieces of baggage. Qatar Airways argues that the issue of the applicants’ damaged baggage is resolved and that it will not address the allegations that the five replacement pieces of baggage were of mediocre quality.

[32] Qatar Airways submits that the applicants are not claiming compensation for any missing items from their baggage.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[33] The Agency finds that five pieces of the applicants’ baggage were damaged while being transported from Toronto to Jaffna and that the damaged baggage was replaced by Qatar Airways.

Analysis and determination

[34] The onus is on the applicants to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the carrier has failed to properly apply, or has inconsistently applied, the terms and conditions of carriage set out in its tariff.

[35] In this case, the only evidence that the applicants presented to support their claim that the replacement baggage was unsuitable was a statement in their application that the replacement baggage was “mediocre” in comparison with their damaged baggage. The Agency finds that the applicants have not established that the replacement pieces of baggage provided by Qatar Airways were inadequate. Therefore, the Agency determines that Qatar Airways properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Rule 55(B)(1) of Qatar Airways’ Tariff and Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention regarding the applicants’ damaged baggage.

[36] The Agency notes that the applicants are not seeking compensation for the alleged missing perfume bottles and, thus, this aspect of the application will not be considered.

[37] Based on the above, the Agency finds that Qatar Airways properly applied the terms and conditions set out in Qatar Airways’ Tariff regarding the damage to the applicants’ baggage.

3. DID THE CARRIER PROPERLY APPLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ITS INTERNATIONAL TARIFF REGARDING THE DELAY OF THE APPLICANTS’ BAGGAGE? IF THE CARRIER DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY ITS TARIFF, WHAT REMEDY, IF ANY, IS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANTS?

Positions of the parties and findings of fact

THE APPLICANTS

[38] The applicants contend that, upon arrival in Colombo on August 7, 2017, they spoke with Qatar Airways’ representatives and were told that their delayed baggage would arrive in Colombo the following day. The applicants state that, as a result, they cancelled their transportation to and accommodation in Jaffna and booked a hotel in Colombo for one night in order to go to the airport the next day to pick up their delayed baggage. The applicants submit that they bought some clothing for all four of them on that first day in Colombo. The applicants also submit that the following day, they returned to the airport and received one piece of baggage, which contained gifts for family members living in Jaffna. The applicants explain that they extended their stay in Colombo by an additional night and bought some additional clothing as well as toiletries and medication. The applicants add that they returned to the airport on August 9, 2017, but when they did not receive any of their remaining missing baggage, they purchased more clothing before leaving Colombo and travelling to their final destination, Jaffna. The applicants state that the remaining seven pieces of baggage were delivered to them in Jaffna by Qatar Airways on August 10, 2017, after a four-day delay.

[39] The applicants indicate that they sought compensation for expenses incurred as a result of the delay of their baggage by filing a Passenger Property Questionnaire with Qatar Airways. The applicants state that they did not receive compensation from Qatar Airways for the claimed expenses, and therefore, they are seeking compensation in the amount of US$2,120; specifically:

• US$400 for the cost of two nights in a hotel in Colombo and the cost of cancelling their hotel in Jaffna;
• US$150 for transportation cancellation expenses;
• US$270 for replacement medication;
• US$100 for replacement toiletries, including diapers and sunscreen; and,
• US$1,200 for replacement clothing.

[40] The applicants state that they do not have receipts for any of the expenses that they incurred as a result of the delay of their baggage. The applicants indicate that they did not anticipate that they would have to file an application against Qatar Airways to resolve the damaged and delayed baggage-related issues raised in their application.

Hotel and transportation expenses

[41] The applicants claim that they incurred US$400 for cancelling their hotel in Jaffna and staying in a hotel in Colombo for two nights and US$150 in expenses from cancelling their transportation to Jaffna on the day they landed in Colombo. The applicants submit that the hotels were booked with local residents and, as all expenses were paid for with cash, receipts were not provided.

Medication

[42] The applicants claim that they incurred US$270 for replacement medication. While the applicants originally stated that the medication was in their “hand luggage”, they later clarified that “hand luggage” was the wrong term and that the medication was in the delayed checked baggage.

[43] Although the applicants did not provide any receipts to substantiate their claim, they filed photos of the medication for which they are seeking compensation, as supporting evidence. In their application, the applicants state that they are seeking compensation for medication that they purchased as a result of their delayed baggage; however, in their reply, the applicants acknowledge that the medication in the photos was purchased in Canada. They clarify that they are seeking compensation for the medication that they could not use because of the delay, namely the medication purchased in Canada.

Clothing and toiletries

[44] The applicants state that they incurred US$100 to purchase replacement toiletries, including diapers and sunscreen, and US$1,200 to purchase replacement clothing. The applicants submit that the replacement items were purchased with cash and receipts were unavailable.

[45] The applicants assert that they attended the Nallur Temple Festival while they were in Sri Lanka and that they purchased traditional Sri Lankan clothing to wear to the festival. They submit that the cost of the replacement clothing is high because traditional clothing is more expensive than casual clothing; they claim that a high quality saree can cost more than US$200. The applicants state that they purchased two sets of traditional clothing for each family member and some casual clothing because they needed to change three times per day as a result of the heat and humidity.

QATAR AIRWAYS

[46] Qatar Airways acknowledges that eight pieces of the applicants’ baggage were delayed during transportation from Toronto to Colombo and does not contest that the applicants received one delayed piece of baggage on August 8, 2017. However, Qatar Airways states that the applicants received the remaining seven pieces of baggage on August 9, 2017, after a two-day delay.

[47] Qatar Airways argues that it complied with all applicable conditions of carriage, legislation, regulations, and international conventions.

[48] Qatar Airways submits that the applicants’ claims for expenses incurred as a result of the delay of their baggage are unreasonable and unsubstantiated. Qatar Airways confirms that the applicants’ Passenger Property Questionnaire contained a list of the expenses that the applicants allegedly incurred due to the delayed delivery of their baggage, but no receipts were provided to substantiate the amounts claimed. Qatar Airways argues that the expenses claimed by the applicants seem excessive for a two-day delay in the delivery of their baggage and that US$2,120 is a large sum of money to have spent in cash without obtaining receipts, particularly if the applicants intended to claim compensation from a carrier.

Hotel and transportation expenses

[49] Qatar Airways states that it is unclear how the applicants could have incurred cancellation fees if they were paying for their hotels and transportation in cash. It contends that if the transportation and hotels were booked locally and paid for with cash, it is unlikely that they were prepaid and, therefore, the applicants could not have incurred cancellation fees. In the alternative, if the transportation and hotel reservations were pre-booked or paid for in advance, Qatar Airways argues that evidence of the booking and cancellation of those reservations should exist, either in the form of an e-mail, a travel agency confirmation receipt, or credit card records showing the charges. Qatar Airways submits that the applicants could also have contacted the hotels or transportation providers to obtain records of the transactions in order to submit them as evidence in support of their application.

[50] Qatar Airways contends that without confirmation of hotel and transportation reservations, confirmation of the cancellation of those reservations, or further information such as the name of the hotels or the transportation provider, there is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support the applicants’ claim that they incurred hotel and transportation expenses as a result of their delayed baggage.

Medication

[51] Qatar Airways states that, based on the applicants’ photographs submitted as supporting evidence, their medication was obtained at a pharmacy in Canada. It contends that it is unclear why the applicants would submit photographs of items bought in Canada as evidence of expenses they incurred in Sri Lanka. Qatar Airways argues that if the applicants replaced the medication in Sri Lanka, a pharmacy record should be available.

Clothing and toiletries

[52] Qatar Airways submits that the amount of compensation sought by the applicants for clothing and toiletries is unreasonably high considering that prices for clothing and toiletries are considerably lower in Sri Lanka than in Canada. Furthermore, Qatar Airways argues that no receipts were submitted to support these claims for compensation. Qatar Airways also states that the photo of the applicants’ toiletries suggests that the products were purchased in Canada as the information on the toiletries’ labels are in English and French.

Findings of fact

[53] It is uncontested that eight pieces of the applicants’ baggage were delayed and that the applicants received one piece of baggage on August 8, 2018.

[54] Qatar Airways contests the applicants’ statement that they received the remaining delayed baggage on August 10, 2017. In its answer, Qatar Airways claims that it delivered the remaining delayed baggage to the applicants on August 9, 2017. However, the baggage receipt form on the record is not dated. Qatar Airways indicates that the remaining seven pieces of baggage were signed for by a third party, and the Agency notes that the signatures of the person accepting the first piece of delayed baggage and the person accepting the remaining seven pieces are different. Therefore, the Agency finds that the remaining seven pieces of baggage may have been delivered to the applicants’ final destination on August 9, 2017 and signed for by a third party, but that the applicants likely did not receive the baggage until they arrived in Jaffna late on August 9 or on August 10, 2017.

[55] The Agency notes that the applicants did not file receipts for any of the expenses they claim to have incurred as a result of the delayed baggage, and it is uncontested that the photographs of the medication and toiletries filed by the applicants in support of their application show products that were purchased in Canada and, thus, are not evidence of purchases made in Colombo during the delay.

Analysis and determination

[56] The liability of the carrier in the case of delayed baggage is limited to 1,131 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for each passenger under Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention, subject only to a certain exception which is not applicable in this case. As the Agency has found that eight pieces of the applicants’ baggage were delayed, each of the four applicants is entitled to compensation up to 1,131 SDR. Considering that the applicants did not receive any compensation from Qatar Airways for their delayed baggage, the Agency finds that Qatar Airways did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in Qatar Airways’ Tariff regarding the delay of the applicants’ baggage.

[57] If the Agency finds that a carrier did not properly apply the terms and conditions set out in its tariff, the Agency can order the carrier to reimburse an applicant for the expenses that they incurred as a result of delayed, damaged, or lost baggage.

[58] The Agency is of the opinion that a party, in endeavouring to prove a fact, must do so by presenting the best evidence available in light of the nature and circumstances of the case. While the production of original receipts of purchase will generally be considered adequate proof of loss, circumstances may render it unreasonable to require this form of proof. In these situations, it may be unreasonable to expect that such proof is in an applicant’s possession. Other methods such as a sworn affidavit, a declaration, or the inherent reasonableness of the expenses claimed could, in some cases, assist in determining the validity of a claim. Furthermore, the Agency notes that Article 22(2) of the Montreal Convention does not require proof of loss in the form of receipts of purchase.

HOTEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES

[59] The Agency finds that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim for expenses incurred to cancel their transportation from Colombo to Jaffna and to stay in Colombo for two nights after they landed.

[60] In any event, Rule 190(D) of Qatar Airways’ Tariff addresses rush or expedite baggage and states that baggage which has been mishandled for reasons beyond a passenger’s control shall be delivered to the passenger. Qatar Airways’ website contains information about how the carrier addresses delayed baggage, including the following: “Delayed baggage is usually located within 24 hours and can be delivered to your home, office or hotel, if local customs regulations permit.”

[61] Therefore, once the applicants’ remaining seven delayed pieces of baggage arrived at the airport in Colombo, Qatar Airways followed its established delayed baggage procedure by delivering the delayed baggage to the applicants’ final destination at no cost to the applicants.

[62] Under these circumstances, the Agency finds that:

• it was unnecessary for the applicants to remain in Colombo for two nights after they arrived; and,
• Qatar Airways should not be held responsible for the expenses that the applicants chose to incur by changing their travel itinerary.

[63] While the applicants clarified that the medication was in their delayed baggage and not their “hand luggage”, the photos of the medication that the applicants submitted as evidence show that the pharmacy where the medication was obtained is in Canada. The applicants indicated in their reply that they are seeking compensation for the medication that was in their delayed baggage because they could not use that medication; however, compensation is available to be paid to passengers as reimbursement for expenses that they incurred in transit to replace necessary items that are in their delayed baggage. In this case, there is no evidence that any medication was purchased in Sri Lanka; in fact, the evidence filed by the applicants only shows medication purchased in Canada.

[64] Therefore, the Agency finds that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim for compensation for medication.

CLOTHING AND TOILETRIES

[65] With respect to their claim for replacement toiletries, the applicants contend that they purchased toiletries while their baggage was delayed, but they filed photos of products purchased in Canada. Although there is no evidence that the applicants purchased replacement products in Sri Lanka, the Agency finds it reasonable that some toiletries would have been purchased during the delay considering that the applicants are a family of four, including young children. Therefore, the Agency finds that US$100 is a reasonable claim for toiletries in this circumstance.

[66] With regards to the applicants’ claim for replacement clothing, the applicants submit that when they arrived in Colombo, they were informed that they would receive their baggage the following day and they purchased some clothing that day. The applicants assert that they received one piece of baggage the following day, but the baggage only contained gifts for family members. The applicants were uncertain when their remaining baggage would arrive and, therefore, they purchased toiletries, medication, and additional clothing later that day. The applicants state that they returned to the airport in Colombo the next day, but did not receive their remaining baggage. At that point, the applicants decided to purchase more clothing in Colombo before travelling on to Jaffna.

[67] The Agency finds that, while the expenses claimed for replacement clothing are high, the applicants’ explanations that they purchased the replacement clothing over several days as they were unaware of when their delayed baggage would arrive and incurred greater costs because they were purchasing traditional clothing in order to attend the Nallur Temple Festival are reasonable. The Agency is satisfied that the applicants’ actions were reasonable during the delay because they purchased the replacement clothing over multiple days and, before making these purchases, they attempted to confirm when their baggage would arrive at the airport in Colombo. However, the Agency finds that the applicants’ claim for US$1,200 is unreasonably high without providing any receipts. Although the applicants’ claim that they did not keep the receipts because they did not realize they were going to file a complaint with the Agency, the Agency is of the view that if a person’s baggage is delayed and that person will incur expenses due to the delay, it is a reasonable expectation for that person to ask for and retain receipts, especially if the expenses incurred are high.

[68] The Agency deems US$800 to be an appropriate amount of compensation for replacement clothing for four people, US$300 per adult and $100 per child, in this case.

[69] In conclusion, the Agency finds that the applicants provided sufficient evidence to substantiate part of their claim for compensation for replacement clothing and toiletries purchased while they were waiting for their delayed baggage.

CONCLUSION

[70] The Agency finds that the applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims for hotel expenses, transportation cancellation fees and the cost of replacement medication.

[71] The Agency finds that the applicants’ claim of US$100 for replacement toiletries is reasonable. Although the applicants’ claim of US$1,200 for replacement clothing is too high, the Agency finds it reasonable that the applicants are entitled to some amount of compensation for the clothing they purchased while they were waiting for their delayed baggage. As such, the Agency finds that US$800 is an appropriate amount of compensation for replacement clothing in this case.

ORDER

[72] The Agency orders Qatar Airways to compensate the applicants in the total amount of US$900, specifically US$100 for the replacement toiletries and US$800 for the replacement clothing. Qatar Airways is to pay this amount to the applicants as soon as possible and no later than March 26, 2019.