SUPREME COURT 13th Civil Chamber
CASE NO: 2015/16613
DECISION NO: 2017/2063
Following the trial of the claim for payment between the parties, an objection was filed within the time limit against the decision to dismiss the case for the reasons stated in the decision. The case was then re-examined and decided by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Decision
The plaintiff saw and liked you… Th e defendant sold a vehicle with license plate number 06 in Ostim via the internet for 17,250.00 TL. The vehicle purchased by the plaintiff as a result of negotiations was brought to the service center, where a number of faults were detected. Since the defendant did not agree to the expert’s legal opinion, no expert report was obtained when the vehicle was delivered. The vehicle’s mileage was 4,250.00 TL, and it was requested that the excess amount paid due to the loss of value, along with legal interest from June 13, 2012, be paid by the parties from the date of protest.
Th e defendant argued for the dismissal of the case.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the reduction in mileage, which was shown as a hidden defect in the vehicle’s service records, occurred after the date of sale and that the defendant seller could not be held responsible for this; the plaintiff appealed the ruling.
The expert report on which the court based its ruling is not sufficient to clarify the incident. It is clear that the expert reached a conclusion by evaluating the file, did not personally examine and evaluate the vehicle, did not provide information about the vehicle’s actual mileage and the methods used by the relevant inspection organizations, and therefore did not prepare a report suitable for review by the parties, the court, and the Court of Appeals regarding the alleged contradictory situation.
Although it was submitted at the appeal stage, it is understood that the Oto Test service record in the plaintiff’s possession essentially demonstrates this lack of examination. In this case, an expert or a panel of experts should have been appointed on the subject, an inspection report should have been obtained taking into account the above-mentioned issues, and a decision should have been made based on the outcome. However, the written decision based on the expert report, which was based on an incomplete examination, is contrary to procedure and law, and this situation is the reason for the violation.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 02/20/2017 that the judgment should be overturned in favor of the plaintiff and that the decision should be corrected in accordance with Article 440/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 15 days from the date of notification.