TC
Supreme
law office
E. 2014/1535
K. 2014/2391
T. 12.2.2014
In the Decider between the parties … 2. Issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance on 16/01/2013 and
The examination of the decision of the Court of Cassation numbered 2012/103-2013/6 was requested by the defendant’s attorney and with the request of appeal
it is understood that the case was accepted within the time limit, but the Examining Magistrate …
after the edited report has been heard and repeated petitions, appeals, trial minutes and
after all the documents have been read and examined, they have been discussed and a decision has been made if it is deemed necessary for the job:
DECISION :
The plaintiff was arrested at the bank where his card was blocked on Saturday, 03/03/2007 at 08:00
, it is necessary to call customer services from a mobile phone,
however, he reached out to her, then told her daughter to call him on her home phone, and the card
… has been cancelled until the date. when you went to the bank on the first working day on 05/03/2007, a total of 3,720.00 TL was withdrawn in his past with your debit card, which you waited until 03/03/2007, claiming that he was a victim because the bank did not reach him he has learned that he has taken adequate measures, collected 3.720,00 TL with the delay interest he requested and filed a lawsuit.
The defendant’s lawyer submitted a petition to the court in which he demanded that the bank was not responsible for the transactions that customers made with their passwords, that warnings were sent to customers about what to do when the debit card was detained, that in order to make withdrawals, they had to have a debit card and know the password, that the obligation to store the password belonged to the client, that the bank had no fault, and requested its rejection.
By the court, within the scope of the request, defense, expert report and file; failure to provide the necessary technical equipment to prevent jamming, finding the account balance if the card is jammed and the card is not blocked and detained, locating the device with a camera recording system, not equipped, … not kept in a closed single cabin and not taking measures to prevent the monitoring and intervention of the plaintiff’s card, as well as third parties during the use of the plaintiff’s card, the defendant will be held responsible for all damages that will arise if he does not take measures to protect the cardholder and bank accounts, acceptance of the case, it has been decided that TL 3.720,00 will be collected from the defendant together with the delay interest. The decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
Information and documents contained in the case file,
taking into account that there is nothing contrary to the procedure and the law in the discussion and evaluation, the evidence shown as the basis for the justification of the court decision is that the defendant’s attorney
the existence of the right of appeal has been observed on the spot.
CONCLUSION :
With the rejection of all appeal requests of the defendant’s attorney for the reasons explained above
procedures and the adoption of the provision in accordance with the law, written below to see 190,10 appeal TL
the removal of fees from the plaintiff, it was decided unanimously on 12.02.2014.