TC
YÜCE
Law Office
E. 2016/4862
K. 2017/3347
T. 5.6.2017
In the decision between the parties … 5. The Court of Cassation’s
decision dated 15/10/2015 and numbered 2014/925-2015/813, the defendant’s representative
requested that the case be reviewed, and it was understood that an appeal had been filed within the time limit specified in the petition. After
After hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge, and after reviewing the complaint, pleadings,
court transcripts, and all documents in the file, the matter was discussed and decided as follows:
DECISION:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client had a bank card linked to the defendant’s account,
and on Sunday, November 2, 2008, the defendant … the other defendant’s bank card could also be used …
When I tried to use my card at the ATM at the branch, my card was blocked. The next day, when he checked his account with another card belonging to the same account,
he noticed that his client’s money was missing. The defendants
claimed that they could not provide the necessary security and that the damage resulting from the theft of the card amounted to 3,100.00 TL
and that this amount would be collected from November 3, 2008, onwards at the advance interest rate applied to short-term advances.
They filed a lawsuit together, requesting and suing for this amount.
The defendant’s representative filed an objection to the lawsuit, and the plaintiff, who claimed that he was at fault for not reporting to his bank within the specified time period that his card and PIN had been disclosed or stolen by third parties,
presented his defense and requested that the lawsuit be dismissed.
other defendant’s representative stated that, according to security camera footage, he was with the plaintiff when his card got stuck,
The other defendant’s attorney, however, stated that, according to security camera footage, the plaintiff was present when his card got stuck,
told the person who came over his card’s PIN, that this person tried to help the plaintiff, but when unsuccessful,
the plaintiff left the ATM, and later an unknown person came and took the plaintiff’s card,
that he left, and that the plaintiff did not take care to keep his PIN secret,
and that he refused to dismiss the case, claiming that he had likely done it himself.
Based on the court’s decision to dismiss the case, according to the entire scope of the file; the plaintiff, the defendant …
When requesting to use his bank card at the bank’s ATM to access his demand deposit account, the Bank…
The card was left at the bank’s ATM or a third party was consulted to retrieve the card, but
after exiting the ATM, he could not retrieve his card. Upon the removal of the card from the ATM by individuals … The bank
According to the expert report obtained, money was withdrawn from the plaintiff’s account using the plaintiff’s ATMs, and the plaintiff
is liable to the Bank for 10%, 20%, and 70% of the damage, respectively,
and the defendants are liable for compensating the plaintiff for the damage amounting to 3,100.00 TL,
Since it was understood that the deposit was not commercial in nature, the lawsuit was partially
accepted and legal interest was to be applied, with the defendant being liable for 2,170 TL of the 2,790 TL amount and the Bank being liable for 620 TL as of 03/11/2008
, along with legal interest, shall be collected from the defendants and paid to the plaintiff.
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
Considering that the documents in the file were issued in accordance with the court’s reversal decision and that there was no violation of the discretion to evaluate the evidence,
it was determined that all of the defendant’s attorney’s objections were unfounded.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, the defendant’s counsel’s objections
regarding the confirmation of the ruling, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, have been rejected, and it has been decided unanimously on June 5, 2017, that the remaining 100.58 TL appeal
fee shall be collected from the defendant.