T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
E. 2016/6483
K. 2017/467
T. 25.1.2017
At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, for the reasons written in the dec
upon appeal by the defendant’s attorney within the period of the decision made for the acceptance of the case
the case was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
DECISION : The deputy plaintiff stated that his client was a customer of the defendant bank, from the ATM on 07.03.2013
that his card was detained by the machine when he wanted to withdraw money, he immediately went to the bank branch
he said that he left, but at this time he found out that $ 3,350.00 had been withdrawn from his account, around the ATM
there are no cameras to ensure security, the bank does not have a daily withdrawal limit, in the event
the bank is defective, the defendant bank has been issued a warning to remedy the damage, but
stating that no payment has been made, as of 18.03.2013, which is the default date of 100 TL for now
together with the discount interest, he asked the defendant to decide on its collection and sued.
The defendant’s deputy is the person to whom the holder of the debit card has signed a contract with the bank or the card has its own
protecting and storing the debit card and information about the use of this card from the moment it has been
if the card is stuck in the ATM, the necessary alerts will be displayed on the ATM screen
it is written that the plaintiff protects his bank card and information and does not actually leave the beginning
the court has requested the dismissal of the case by stating that the plaintiff is defective.
According to the trial conducted by the court, the evidence collected and the expert report adopted, the defendant
measures to prevent easy intervention and installation of devices in the bank’s ATM devices
it is 80% defective due to the fact that it did not receive it, did not fulfill the debt of objective care,
violation of the plaintiff’s obligation to protect and store his bank card, late notification to the bank
it has been decided to accept the case on the grounds that it is 20% defective due to,
the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
The case is a case of receivables for compensation for damage caused by a banking transaction. Plaintiff, the bank
that the ATM card issued by …was detained by the ATM device located in front of the Bazaar,
he claims that he notified the bank branch, but that £3,350 was withdrawn from his account without his knowledge
he asked for compensation for this damage. Banks are trust organizations. The mildest against the depositor
he is responsible for all damage due to his defect. In a concrete case, the court found that the card on the ATM device
although it was accepted that he was detained and it was decided to accept the case, the material fact claimed by the plaintiff
perceive. In addition, the expert who prepares the expert report based on the provision has the technical knowledge
the report could not be audited by the Supreme Court because it was not available. From an expert expert with re-technical knowledge
evidence on whether the bank is responsible for the transaction made by receiving the report
it should be evaluated and decided according to the result, while the decision should be made in writing with incomplete examination
it was not correct to give it, the court decision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: In case of VIOLATION of the provision for the reasons described above, an advance fee is requested
his extradition was decided unanimously on 25/01/2017.
