Nem jogerősen pert nyert a Budapesti Békéltető Testület a BKV Zrt-vel szemben

Budapest-Capital Regional Court has rejected the action without final judgment, which was submitted earlier by the Budapest Transport Privately Held Corporation for the annulment of the recommendation of the Arbitration Board of Budapest. Previously, the consumer in his claim addressed to the Arbitration Board of Budapest (the defendant) requested a compensation for his 1670 HUF taxi costs from the Budapest Transport Privately Held Corporation (the plaintiff). He waited in vain in the stopping-place as the scheduled vehicle did not stop, and since he hurried to a pre-booked trip to another country, if he would have waited for the next scheduled vehicle, he would have missed the occasional transport. He sent the receipt from the taxi fare to the plaintiff’s consumer services and asked for a reimbursement, but his demand was rejected. This happened despite the fact that the bus driver admitted his responsibility and a written record has been made that he did not know the route, because he spent his 1st day on that path and did not know he had to stop there. After that, the defendant provided in its recommendation that the plaintiff should pay the 1670 HUF amount to the consumer, because the fact that the vehicle did not stop at the stopping-place, proves that the contract breach has happened on the plaintiffs side. The plaintiff asked for the annulment of the recommendations, primarily because the defendant was not competent to settle the dispute because there wasn’t a contract between the parties. Secondly, the plaintiff also stated that the defendant’s actions did not meet the provisions of the consumer protection act, as the BKK Zrt. should also have taken part in the proceeding because the passenger also concluded a contract with them at the same time he contracted with the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff argued that the receipt attached by the consumer is not sufficient to validate the claim, as it does not contain the person’s name who actually took the taxi service. Thereafter, the Budapest-Capital Regional Court has rejected the plaintiff’s claim in its verdict. In its explanatory memorandum, it has been pointed out that on one hand, the defendant had jurisdiction in the particular case, and on the other hand, the transportation contract is established between the applicant and the passenger by implied conduct. It also laid down that the procedure has correctly been initiated against the plaintiff because the consumer named the plaintiff in his claim, and this business was clearly involved in the case. Last but not least, it pointed out that the defendant can consider freely the available evidence in its proceedings and can make a decision in which the court does not have a voice in, but also the recommendation was reasonable and the court would have made a similar decision while deciding the case.