3rd Law Office
Case Number: 2020/3188
Decision Number: 2020/4776
“Text of Justice”
COURT: CONSUMER COURT
At the end of the trial between the parties, the plaintiff’s attorney’s ruling, for the reasons stated in the decision, partially accepting and partially rejecting the case, was sent to the relevant parties without a hearing, against the defendant … San. ve Tic. A.Ş., upon the attorney’s appeal with a hearing. On a specific date, neither the defendant nor the plaintiff who filed the appeal appeared. The hearing began with the arrival of the assistant attorney for the other defendant, … Office Inc. After hearing the verbal statements of the official, the decision was postponed to another date. This time, it was determined that the appeal petition was filed within the time limit, the file was examined, and its necessity was discussed and evaluated.
DECISION
The plaintiff stated that he had purchased fuel for his licensed vehicle from the gas station of … Petrol Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., but that the pump attendant had given him gasoline instead of diesel, causing the vehicle to malfunction, and that upon his application to the defendant company … Automotive Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. that the vehicle’s fuel filter had been replaced and the gasoline in the tank had been cleaned, but the vehicle had been returned to the plaintiff. Automotive Industry and Trade Ltd. Co. took over the vehicle for repair, changed only the fuel filter and cleaned the gasoline in the tank, but the vehicle malfunctioned again the next day and suffered significant damage as a result of the defendants’ negligence;
A total of 15,000.00 TL was claimed for the cost of the damaged parts, 600.00 TL for the repair and labor costs of the damaged parts, 1,000.00 TL for the depreciation of the vehicle, 150.00 TL for towing expenses, vehicle rental fee, distribution and vehicle delivery costs of 3,540.00 TL were claimed, and it was requested that a decision be made to collect a total of 23,567.00 TL from the defendants; 2,800.00 TL of this amount is for expenses paid to the service, and 477.00 TL is for investigation expenses and costs. In the consolidated case, the issues raised in the original case were repeated, and a numerical claim was made without specifying the requested outcome or amount in the petition…
Otomotiv San. Ticaret Ltd. Şti. was named as the defendant, and the consolidation of the case with the original case was requested. With the amendment petition dated 03/30/2016, the claims for improvement were accepted after the repair and labor costs for the damaged parts were increased to 600.00 TL and the price of the damaged part was determined to be 15,000.00 TL. In line with the other claims stated in the complaint and the amendment petition, it was requested that the court rule to collect the repair and labor costs of the damaged parts, amounting to 27,256.00 TL, together with interest.
The defendants requested that the case be dismissed.
As a result of the court’s proceedings in accordance with the arbitration decision, in the main case; upon partial acceptance of the lawsuit filed against the defendant … St. and Tic. Davalı, it was decided that 15,600.00 TL of the 27,256.00 TL owed for damaged parts and labor costs, plus legal interest from the date of the lawsuit and from March 30, 2016, amounting to 11,656.00 TL, to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant … San. ve Tic. A.Ş.’s request to be awarded to the plaintiff was rejected, the lawsuit filed against … Ofisi A.Ş. was dismissed, and the combined lawsuit was dismissed; the ruling was appealed by the plaintiff and the defendant in the main case, … Petrol Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
1- Provided that there are no errors in the items in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legally compelling reasons, and especially in the evaluation of the evidence, all objections of the defendant and other appeal objections of the plaintiff outside the scope of the following paragraph should be rejected.
2- The plaintiff claimed compensation for damages incurred as a result of the employees of the fuel station owned by the defendant Industry and Trade Inc. putting the wrong fuel in their vehicle. The court ruled to partially accept the case of the defendant … Industry and Trade Inc. in the main case and to dismiss the case of the other defendant … Office Inc. on the grounds that it was not at fault for the damage. Firstly, it should be noted that in this specific case, one of the defendants, … Petroleum Industry and Trade Inc., is a dealer of the other defendant, … Office Inc. (Petrol Ofisi) is a gas station operated by Petroleum Industry and Trade Inc. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the vehicle’s malfunction. The dispute centers on whether the supplier bears joint liability for the service provided by the dealer.
The third paragraph of Article 4/A of Law No. 4077, which was in force on the date the damage occurred, states that “The supplier, dealer, agent, and creditor are liable for faulty service and malfunction in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 10.”
The service provider shall be jointly and severally liable for any damage caused by the service and for the consumer’s optional rights specified in this article. Ignorance of the defectiveness of the service provided does not eliminate this liability.
According to Article 3 of the Law in question, titled “Definitions”;
“For the purposes of this Law,
d) Service: Any activity other than the supply of goods in return for payment or benefit,
g) Provider: Real or legal persons, including public legal entities, who provide services to consumers within the scope of their commercial or professional activities, is included.
In a specific dispute, it is not possible to return defective goods to the plaintiff; however, according to the first paragraph of Article 4/A of the Law in question; “… Material, legal, physical, or legal issues that are contrary to the quality or characteristics specified in advertisements and announcements published by the supplier or in standard or technical rules, or that reduce or eliminate the value in terms of the benefits or advantages that the consumer expects to obtain from them.” Services with economic deficiencies are considered defective services.
Accordingly, in the case of the defendant … Industry and Trade Inc. employee putting gasoline instead of diesel in the defendant’s vehicle, a dispute arose between the other defendant … Petroleum Industry and Trade Inc., which provides services as a dealer of … Petroleum Industry and Trade Inc., and the other defendant … Office. According to the first paragraph of Article 4/A of the aforementioned Law, defective service is involved; because the service contains material deficiencies that eliminate the benefit expected by the consumer in relation to the benefit purpose specified in the supplier’s advertisements and announcements.
According to the third paragraph of Article 4/A, the supplier and the dealer are jointly liable for any damages arising from the defective service and for the consumer’s optional rights set forth in this article. Furthermore, ignorance of the defectiveness of the service provided does not eliminate this liability (Supreme Court of Appeals decision dated 19.09.2012, No. 2012/13-153 E., 2012/598 K.). Disregarding this point explained by the court and dismissing the case on the grounds that the defendant … Office had no fault in causing the damage is contrary to procedure and law and requires reversal.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, all objections of the defendant appealing the decision and all other objections of the plaintiff outside the scope of the second paragraph, for the reasons explained in paragraph (2), the contested judgment has been upheld in favor of the plaintiff, and the previously paid appeal fee has been refunded to the plaintiffs upon request. With reference to Provisional Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100, the decision was made unanimously on 09/24/2020, in accordance with Article 440 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, with the possibility of correction within 15 days from the notification of the decision.