TC
YÜCE
Law Office
E. 2014/1535
K. 2014/2391
T. 12.2.2014
In the decision between the parties … 2. The decision issued by the First Instance Commercial Court on 16/01/2013 and
the review of the Supreme Court’s decision No. 2012/103-2013/6 was requested by the defendant’s counsel, and the appeal was accepted within the time limit,
but after the report prepared by the Review Judge …
After the report was heard and the petitions, appeals, court transcripts, and
all documents were read and reviewed, the matter was discussed and decided as deemed necessary:
DECISION:
The plaintiff was arrested at the bank where his card was blocked on Saturday, March 3, 2007, at 8:00 a.m.
, and should have called customer service from his mobile phone starting at 08:20,
but he stated that he could not reach them, and later told his daughter to call him from the home phone, and that the card
was canceled until the date of … On March 5, 2007, when you went to the bank on the first business day, you claimed that a total of 3,720.00 TL was withdrawn using the bank card you had kept with you until March 3, 2007,
, a total of 3,720.00 TL was withdrawn from his bank account, and he claims that he was wronged because the bank
did not take sufficient precautions, collected the 3,720.00 TL he requested along with late fees, and filed a lawsuit.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the bank is not responsible for transactions made by customers using their own passwords, and that the bank has provided warning notices to customers regarding what to do if their bank cards are retained.that in order to withdraw money, they must have a bank card and know the password, that the client is responsible for keeping the password safe, and that the bank
is not at fault, and requested that the case be dismissed.
court, based on the claim, defense, expert report, and case file, found that the necessary technical equipment to prevent jamming was not provided, the account balance and card were not blocked and retained in the event of card jamming, the location of the device was not identified using a camera recording system, it was not equipped, it was in a single closed booth, and during the plaintiff’s use of the card… failure to take measures to prevent third parties from monitoring and interfering with the plaintiff’s card, and the defendant’s failure to take measures to protect the owner and bank accounts, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay 3,720.00 TL plus interest for delay.
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorneyAccording to the information and documents in the case file,
based on the grounds that there was no procedural or legal violation in the negotiations and evaluations, the evidence relied upon in the court’s decision was deemed by the defendant’s attorney to be
unfounded,
and the defendant’s attorney’s appeal was rejected, and
the appeal regarding the written balance of 190.10 TL was decided, and the ruling, which was found to be in accordance with procedure and law, was ACCEPTED,
and a unanimous decision was made in favor of the plaintiff on February 12, 2014.