T.C.
SUPREME
11. law office
E. 2016/4862
K. 2017/3347
T. 5.6.2017
In the case between the parties … 5. Dec. 15/10/2015 actually given by the court in accordance with the regulations of the trade date and to disrupt 2014/925-examination by the defendant filed the petition and appeal of Decision No. 2015/813 … yargitayca attorney that is given within the period of being understood, with the audit report to file a claim held by a judge rested, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:
DECISION : the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, his client …’s account linked to a debit card that has 02.11.2008 on the day of Sunday, belonging to the defendant …the defendant debit card can be used at the ATM at the branch where other when they want to use your card, the card is blocked if the other card with the same account that belong to your checking account the next day he saw that client money was missing, the defendants have not the necessary security, loss due to theft of the card 3.100,00 TL citing, he requested and sued that a decision be made to collect this amount from the defendants together with the advance interest applied for short-term advances as of 03.11.2008. Defendant …. his attorney filed a hostility objection, requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff, who transmitted or stole his password to third parties as well as his card, did not inform the client bank about this during the period, was defective.
The other defendant’s attorney, according to the security camera recordings, told the password of his card to the person who came to the plaintiff after his card got stuck, the person tried to help the plaintiff, when he failed, the plaintiff left the ATM, then the unidentified person came and took the plaintiff’s card
he asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that he had left and that the plaintiff had not been careful about hiding his password. According to the scope of the entire file by complying with the decision of the court to overturn; during the plaintiff’s request to use the debit card from the Bank’s ATM to the defendant’s existing deposit account with the Bank, the card was left at the Bank’s ATM, and then 3 to receive the card.the plaintiff talked to the persons, but could not get his card, after leaving the ATM, 3.according to the expert report received, money was taken from the plaintiff’s account by removing the card from the ATM by people … using it at Bank ATMs, the plaintiff is responsible for 10%, the Bank is responsible for 20%, the Bank is responsible for 70% in the formation of the plaintiff’s loss, according to the expert report received, according to their responsibilities, the defendants are responsible for compensating the plaintiff’s loss of 3.100,00 TL, on the grounds that legal interest should be applied since the deposit is understood to be non-commercial, with partial acceptance of the case, the defendant is responsible for 2.170 TL of 2.790 TL …, 620 TL … The Bank is responsible for the decision to be taken from the defendants together with the legal interest from 03/11/2008 and given to the plaintiff
has been given. The decision has been appealed by the defendant’s … attorney.
According to the articles in the file, the verdict was given in accordance with the decision of the court to overturn and there was no wrongdoing in the evaluation of the evidence, all the appeals of the defendant’s … attorney are not in place.
CONCLUSION : Due to the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 05.06.2017 to reject all the appeals objections of the defendant’s … attorney and to APPROVE the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, to collect the following balance of the appeal judgment fee of TL 100.58 from the appellant defendant …………..
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.