THE SUPREME COURT RESOLVED THE CASE ON THE RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION IN FAVOR OF THE CARRIER PROVIDING PREFERENTIAL TRAVEL

The plaintiff, under an agreement with the city administration, introduced benefits for certain categories of citizens on its routes. Under the terms of the contract, the administration had to compensate for the transportation of preferential passengers, in connection with which the plaintiff was transferred an amount of 1.3 million rubles, however, he considered it insufficient and filed a claim for damages to the Ministry of Finance of the region (case no. A53-1827/2022)

The court of first instance, considering the case, pointed out the absence in the Rostov region of the established procedure and methodology for calculating compensation for the difference between the costs of the carrier to ensure equal availability of services for citizens and the cost of a single preferential ticket, noting also the insufficiency of the conditions stipulated in the contract for full compensation to the plaintiff. In this regard, the court approved the use of a different calculation method based on the analysis of passenger traffic in the city and satisfied the claims. The courts of appeal and cassation instances agreed with this decision.

The Supreme Court, considering the complaint, pointed out a significant error in the conclusion of the court of first instance: contrary to the court's statements, there is a regulatory legal act in the Rostov region regulating the issue of compensation for the difference between the carrier's costs and the cost of a discounted ticket and the provisions of the contract between the plaintiff and the city administration fully comply with the calculation method established in it.

The Supreme Court recalled that in the relationship of compensation to a person for the preferential sale of goods, performance of works or provision of services, it is the failure to fulfill the obligation to compensate such a person for the payment not received from the consumer that causes the occurrence of losses. Since in the case under consideration, the city administration fulfilled its obligations to the plaintiff in full, in accordance with the legislation of the subject and the provisions of the contract, the plaintiff did not suffer any losses. The acts of the lower courts were annulled, and the claims were denied.