In 2015, a certain passenger travelled from Lima to Cancun with a stopover in the United States. Since he did not pick up his luggage when making the transfer, he received it in Cancun one day after his arrival. The passenger filed a case against JetBlue to INDECOPI for this delay, arguing that he was not informed that he was supposed to move his luggage during the transfer.
INDECOPI fined JetBlue, but rejected the remedy requested by the complainant. JetBlue appealed the fine and in the second administrative instance, it was declared null and void, but, surprisingly, a remedy was added against JetBlue, whose value was more than double than the one requested by the complainant.
JetBlue appealed to the Judiciary demanding the annulment of this remedy, given that INDECOPI should have ruled only on what the parties had discussed in the procedure and that it is prohibited for the party who appeals to obtain a decision that is more harmful than the one appealed. What was the basis for the sudden remedy? INDECOPI argued that it has the legal power to order remedies ex officio to protect the consumer.
Thanks to our legal representation, the Judiciary agreed with JetBlue in the first and second instances, a decision that has just been ratified by the Supreme Court emphasizing that due process must always be guaranteed.
In this way, the Supreme Court guarantees that consumer protection procedures are carried out in accordance with due process. Undoubtedly, this judgment will guide future similar cases along the correct path.
