A passenger on the Israel Railways filed against to company a class act and but will have to pay NIS 75k

A passenger on the Israel Railways who filed a class action lawsuit in December 2017, claiming that the train is misleading the public and getting rich at his own expense when it deliberately hides the possibility of purchasing a combined daily ticket and encourages the purchase of more expensive regular tickets, will have to pay NIS 75,000. "D. This, after the Tel Aviv District Court rejected the passenger's request.
The application for class approval was submitted by the applicant, who is an individual who used the services of Israel Railways. In the application, it was alleged that the Israel Railways misled the passenger public by concealing material information which prevented the passenger public from comparing the various travel tickets offered for sale and thus caused the passenger public to purchase more expensive travel tickets.
Israel Railways, which was represented in the proceedings by attorneys Ronen Katzaf, Ravit Koren-Perry and Shai Matam from the firm of M. Piron & Co. argued in its reply that contrary to what was claimed in the application, the train presents to the general public through various media the possibility of purchasing different tickets, whether it is a ticket for train travel only or a combined ticket for various public transport.
Also, every consumer has the option to purchase the most affordable ticket for him, when it is clear that the needs of each passenger are different and that the train should not deal with the question of what is the right ticket for each passenger individually and what is the economic interest of that passenger. And not by her.
Judge Doron Hassadi ruled that "all the information regarding the various travel arrangements is published by various means, given the nature of the consumer contract in his case, the train is not obliged to make sure that the customer understood all the various arrangements. Moreover, each passenger has the opportunity to examine the travel arrangement. The most lucrative for him, whether it is through a check on the train's website or in the app before arriving at the station and purchasing the ticket, or whether it is by contacting a representative at the train station, when the information about the various arrangements is available in the respondent systems. ".
It was further determined that "the court's conclusion at the end of the day and after examining the applicant's testimony is that it was he himself 'who misled himself'. The applicant proceeded from an erroneous assumption and did not examine it by the various means available to him. He chose to waive assistance or examine all options on the site. "And he has nothing to complain about but himself. The said deception on the part of the respondent means that the train has not been proven."
In the absence of the power of the train, attorneys Kafaf and Ronen-Perry from the firm of M. Firon & Co.: “We are pleased that the court accepted our position that the train treated the passengers - and will continue to drive - in a transparent and fair manner. This is a request that should never have come at all. "