Home / Travel news / Muscovite Natasha, not once in Turkey, requires the operator of the money sent in the passport of the relative

As a travel agent, who appropriated part of the sum is not in court

A bunch of “tourist – travel agent – tour operator” extreme in contentious cases is often the last. In this story, the distributor received the money from the customer, the part transferred to the supplier of the product, which it was not even a contractual relationship, and the part appropriated and disappeared with them. Tour operator and would be happy to return donations received from an unknown person, but in court it said not the one from whom came the payment.

Москвичка Наташа, не попав в Турцию, требует с туроператора денег, отправленных по паспорту родственника

This story shared with us the Director of the organization of legal services in the field of tourism BLS Custos Group Polina Barabanova.

In August 2014, Adam, let’s call her Natasha, came to one of the city’s many travel agencies to get the permit to Turkey for a family of four. A tourist says he has chosen a tour to Antalya on 2 September and paid the travel agent (sole proprietor N) a down payment of 117 thousand rubles. On his hands she received a tourist voucher which confirms that the money was deposited in cash by the Agency. 100 thousand of them on the same day, the agent is transferred through the terminal to the tour operator. Approximately 10 days later Natalie brought the missing 100 thousand rubles. Thus, in total she paid 217 thousand rubles. But this time the translation operator is not received, although the travel agent has assured tourists in the back. Accordingly, the stay in Turkey did not take place.

Only in February 2016, the tourist filed claims to the tour operator. As it turned out, prior to that, she pleaded with another provider that the case had no relationship. Apparently, the travel agent just misinformed his client, putting someone else first in order of the tour operator. Natasha only found out in the course of the trial, in the end, identify with those who really received the first installment, and who will be the defendant in a new trial.

Indeed, under article 9 of the Federal law “About bases of tourist activity in the Russian Federation” the tour operator is responsible for the actions (inaction) of third parties, if Federal laws or other normative acts of the Russian Federation is not established that the responsibility to tourists shall bear the third party.

So, it lasts almost a year. Travel agent at court during this time never came.

No confirmation of your booking and the availability of contractual relations between him and the tour operator was not presented. N, as often in the tourist industry sometimes just disappeared.

This evidence tourists was limited by the contract with the travel Agency, a receipt of payment and the payment system that a certain tour operator through the terminal was made so much cash.

In court the tour operator referred to the fact that the payment was made unclear by whom. Any person can make the money through the payment system, and the company will not know who it is. By law, such terminals are intended for payment of services by individuals, not agencies, which use this payment method to avoid tax. Moreover, it became clear that when transferring money through the terminal agent is introduced passport not of the plaintiff and her companions.

The supplier was willing to return the portion of money that he got, the tourists whose data were indicated in the payment. However, she was required to return it to her all the money, even though part of the amount appropriated to the travel agent. In addition, wanted to get a penalty, and compensation for moral damages. Total – more than half a million rubles.

Natasha also tried to prove that the contract between the tour operator and the travel agent was concluded. This was requested a Bank statement from the account of the travel agent to prove that he was the supplier of the calculations. But nothing ever came of it.

On this basis, 22 Jun customer the claim was denied. The requirements of article 56 of the Civil procedure code provides for the proof of the circumstances on which the claim is based and the arguments. And in this case evidence of a relationship between the plaintiff and the tour operator was not presented, and pointed out what the court motivated the decision that Natasha got in July. August 29, she filed an appeal. But date of its consideration is still not assigned.

“There are different situations. In many respects the court’s decision depends on whether there was between the tour operator and travel agent contract, could the tourist to prove that his tour was actually booked or distributor just took the money and even a request to the tour operator are not sent. All money received by the supplier or not. But, as a rule, are not much concerned about the courts,” – commented the representative of the tour operator, lawyer Polina Barabanova.