T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
E. 2014/1535
K. 2014/2391
T. 12.2.2014
In the dec between the parties … 2. Issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance on 16/01/2013 and
The examination of the decision numbered 2012/103-2013/6 by the Court of Cassation was requested by the defendant’s deputy and the appeal
it is understood that his petition was granted within the time limit, but the Examining Judge … for the case file
after the edited report has been listened to and again the petitions, appeals, trial minutes and
after all the documents have been read and examined, they have been discussed and considered as necessary for the job:
VERDICT : The plaintiff was arrested on 03/03/2007 at 08:00 on Saturday at the bank
that his card has been blocked, he must call customer service by mobile phone from 08:20
despite not being able to reach her, she then told her daughter to call her on her home phone and the card was cancelled
until … when you went to the bank on 05/03/2007 on the first working day, you were waiting next to 03/03/2007
we have learned that a total of 3,720.00 TL has been withdrawn with a bank card in its history, the bank has taken sufficient precautions
claiming that he was a victim because he did not receive it, he collected 3,720.00 TL together with default interest
he has requested and sued.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the bank is not responsible for the transactions made by the customers with their own passwords,
warning letters to customers about what they should do when they are detained on a bank card,
in order to make a withdrawal, you must have a bank card and know the password, store the password
arguing that the obligation belongs to the client, the bank has no defects, the lawsuit
he asked for his refusal.
According to the scope of the court, claim, defense, expert report and file;
failure to provide the necessary technical equipment to prevent jamming, account balance if the card is jammed
and that the card is not blocked and detained, the location of the device is determined by the camera-recording system
do not equip, … do not install in a closed single-person cabin, and during the use of the plaintiff’s card
the plaintiff card, as well as the failure to take measures to prevent the monitoring and interference of third parties
the defendant is responsible for all damages if he does not take measures to protect the owner and his bank accounts
acceptance of the case, collection of TL 3,720.00 from the defendant together with default interest, on the grounds that
it was decided.
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
Information and documents contained in the case file, evidence based on the justification of the court decision
according to the fact that there is no aspect contrary to the procedure and law in the discussion and evaluation, the defendant’s attorney has the right to
appeals are not out of place.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons described above, with the rejection of all appeals of the defendant’s deputy, the
for APPROVAL of the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, the balance written below is 190.10 TL appeal
the removal of the fee from the appellant was decided unanimously on 12.02.2014.
