SUPREME COURT 13. law office
ISSUE NO : 2015/16613
DECISION NO : 2017/2063
At the end of the trial of the receivable case between the parties, the case was reviewed and considered by the plaintiff’s lawyer after the decision to dismiss the case for the reasons written in the Dec was appealed within the period of time.
decision
The plaintiff saw you and liked you… a 06 plate tool on the internet Ostim a result of negotiations with the defendant’s car market 17.250,00 TL the purchased vehicle brought in for service where a team of failures have been identified, the defendant’s expert legal opinions because I didn’t want to cut a deal in the opinion of the receipt of the vehicle, the mileage of the vehicle, it is detected that is played with paid extra because of the loss of the value of 4.250,00 TL 13.06.2012 with legal interest from the date of the protest to be paid that be decided to the parties the date of the requested.
The defendant has defended the dismissal of the case.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the reduction in mileage, which was put forward in the service records of the vehicle as a hidden shame, occurred after the date of sale, and the defendant seller could not be held responsible for this; the provision was appealed by the plaintiff.
The expert report of the court, which is based on the judgment, is not sufficient to clarify the incident. It is clear that the expert reached the result by evaluating the file, not personally evaluating the vehicle by examining it, but also did not provide information about the actual mileage of the vehicle and methods in the relevant testing organizations, and thus did not make the alleged conflict a report suitable for party, court and Supreme Court supervision, and although it was submitted at the appeal stage, it appears that the Auto Test service record in the plaintiff’s possession essentially indicates this incomplete review. In this case, by creating an expert expert or expert committee on the subject, an audit report should be received and a decision should be made according to its result, taking into account the above-mentioned issues, while it is contrary to the procedure and law to make a decision in writing based on an expert report based on an incomplete review, and this is the reason for the violation.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 20/02/2017 that the provision would be overturned in favor of the plaintiff for the reasons described above, with a clear way to correct the decision within 15 days from the notification in accordance with Article 440/1 of the HUMK.
