TC
YÜCE
Law Office
E. 2016/6483
K. 2017/467
T. 25.1.2017
Following the trial of the debt claim between the parties,
the defendant’s counsel appealed the decision on the grounds stated in the decision, and the case file was reviewed, discussed, and deemed necessary within the time limit for the decision to accept the case.
DECISION:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client was a customer of the defendant bank, that on March 7, 2013, while attempting to withdraw money from an ATM,
his card was retained by the machine, that he immediately went to the bank branch,
left, but during this time learned that 3,350.00 TL had been withdrawn from his account, that there were no cameras around the ATM
, the bank does not have a daily withdrawal limit,
a notice of default was sent to the defendant bank to compensate for the damage in case of negligence, but
no payment was made, requesting that the court order the collection of 100 TL, including discount interest, as of the default date of March 18, 2013.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the bank card holder had signed a contract with the bank or that the card belonged to him, and that the card remained in the ATM
.it was stated in writing that the necessary warnings would be displayed on the ATM screen, that the plaintiff protected his bank card and information, and that he did not actually leave the scene, and the court requested that the case be dismissed, stating that the plaintiff was at fault.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court, the evidence gathered, and the expert report obtained, it was decided that the defendant was 80% at fault for failing to take measures to prevent easy access to and tampering with the bank’s ATM machines, failing to take delivery, failing to fulfill his objective duty of care, violating his obligation to protect and store the plaintiff’s bank card, and failing to notify the bank in a timely manner, and the case was accepted. efendant’s attorney appealed the ruling. The case is a claim for compensation for damages arising from a banking transaction.
The plaintiff claims that the ATM card issued by the bank was retained by the ATM machine located in front of the … Market, that he notified the bank branch, but that £3,350 was withdrawn from his account without his knowledge, and that he is seeking compensation for this loss. Banks are institutions of trust. The lightest penalty against the deposito
He is liable for all damages resulting from his fault. In the specific case, although the court accepted the claim by acknowledging that the card was stuck in the ATM machine,
it determined that the plaintiff had perceived the material fact he claimed.
Furthermore, based on the ruling, it was not possible for the expert who prepared the expert report to have technical knowledge,
as the report could not be reviewed by the Court of Cassation. A new expert report with technical knowledge should have been obtained
to evaluate the evidence regarding whether the bank was liable for the transaction
and a decision should have been made based on the outcome. However, the decision was made in writing based on an incomplete investigation,
which was incorrect, and the court’s decision should have been overturned.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, in the event of a violation of the ruling, upon the request for an advance fee,
it was decided unanimously on January 25, 2017, to refund the amount.