Supreme Court 13. Legal Department
PRINCIPAL NO: 2015/16613
DECISION NO: 2017/2063

At the end of the trial of the claim between the parties, it was discussed and considered as necessary to review the file on appeal by the plaintiff’s lawyer within the period of the sentence given for dismissal of the case for reasons written in the decree.

DECISION

The plaintiff 06 A … saw the vehicle on the internet and liked the ostim car market as a result of the bargain with the defendant 17,250.00 TL bought the vehicle to service when a number of faults were detected,the defendant’s agreement is not in the way of expert opinion is taken mütalaada the vehicle’s mileage due to the loss of value of the vehicle is determined to be paid extra 4,250. 00 TL

The defendant pleaded guilty.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the reduction in mileage claimed in the vehicle’s service records as a hidden shame occurred after the date of sale, and that the defendant could not be held responsible for the seller; the sentence was appealed by the plaintiff.

The court’s expert report, which is based on the verdict, is not sufficient to clarify the case. It is clear that the expert has reached the conclusion by making an evaluation on the file, did not make an evaluation on the vehicle in person by making an examination, and did not provide information about the actual mileage and methods of the vehicle in the relevant testing institutions and thus did not make the contradictory situation which is alleged to have occurred into a report In this case, it is against the procedure and the law to make a written decision on the expert report based on incomplete examination by taking into account the issues mentioned above and taking into account the expert expert or expert board.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 20/02/2017, in accordance with Article 440/1 of Humk, within 15 days of the notification, the way to correct the decision was clear.