A traveller whose laptop was damaged on a flight from India to Perth has lost a claim dispute that hinged on an overhead locker storage exclusion.

The HDI Global Specialty customer held an overseas travel policy and lodged a claim in December because his laptop would not turn on and there were dents on the casing.

The claim stated: “The overhead bins near my seat were already full. I asked a flight attendant for help because my carry-on bag had important items, including my laptop. Then the attendant placed my bag in an overhead bin several rows behind my seat.”

HDI declined the claim because storage in an overhead locker was excluded unless there was written confirmation the airline required this.

That day, the policyholder changed his version of events, stating: “I attempted to store my bag safely near my seat, including trying to place it under the seat in front of me. However, due to the aircraft being full and space constraints, a cabin crew member took my bag and placed it in an overhead locker several rows away.

“This decision was made entirely by airline staff and not by me. I was required to comply with crew instructions and was not given any alternative option.

“At no point did I choose to place my laptop in the overhead locker, nor did I voluntarily leave it out of my supervision. The placement of my bag was clearly outside my control.”

HDI said it was not until the claim was declined that the man stated he was directed by the airline to use the overhead compartments, and written confirmation he needed to do so was not provided.

An email from the airline provided to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority stated crew could not recall the exact handling of baggage.

“There is no compelling information provided to show the complainant was required to store the laptop in the overhead cabin,” AFCA’s ombudsman said.

“I prefer the complainant’s original version that he was intending to store the laptop in the overhead bin, not that he was specifically directed to do so by the airline.

“However, even if I accept he was asked to do so, I am not persuaded he has established the exception to the exclusion.”

See the ruling here.