THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE FACT THAT THE LAPTOP WAS DAMAGED BY THE DEFENDANT’S DEFECT DURING CARGO TRANSPORTATION

05 Mar THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE FACT THAT THE LAPTOP WAS DAMAGED BY THE DEFENDANT’S DEFECT DURING CARGO TRANSPORTATION

T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
11.law office

Base: 2014/6369
Decision: 2014/12272
Date of Decision: 26.06.2014

CASE OF RECEIVABLES – IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LAPTOP WAS DAMAGED BY THE DEFENDANT’S FAULT DURING CARGO TRANSPORTATION – IT IS DECIDED TO COLLECT THE COST OF THE LAPTOP FROM THE DEFENDANT TOGETHER WITH THE LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE CASE – APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION

SUMMARY: In the concrete case, the subject of the lawsuit is S.. it is understood that the brand laptop was damaged by the defendant’s defect during the transportation of cargo, which has a cost .. It has been decided that TL will be collected from the defendant together with the legal interest from the date of the case.

(4077 P. K. m. 4/A) (6502 P. K. m. 13)

Case and Decision: Zonguldak 2 in the case dec between the parties. 2013/451 given by the civil court and date 10/12/2013-2013/430 as the decision of the Supreme Court of the appellate petition filed by the attorney of the defendant and examination that is given within the period of being understood, with Aldemir held by Judge Melinda rested for the audit report to file a claim, and again within the file petitions, pleadings, and trial proceedings and all documents are read and analyzed, after the nature of the business is discussed, considered:

The plaintiff is his son R., who served in the military service in the District of Kashan from the Kilimli PTT Directorate on 23/03/2011. E. K.’e KP precious cargo to be delivered to No. as 01148703860 Sony Vaio PCG-brand laptop 81212 is sent, the recipients of the son with respect to the external appearance of the boxes when you go to pick up cargo, because there are no record without prejudice in the normal view and the shipping container she took it home, opened the box of the computer when the glass is broken, the PTT PTT collapsed into the card reader when she saw record with Kashan noting that refused to pay the damages of advising, he requested and sued the defendant to decide on its collection together with the legal interest of TL 2,700.00, which is the value placed on the cargo due to defective service.

The defendant’s deputy stated that the case was filed against the Kilimli PTT Directorate, which does not have a legal entity, and asked for the rejection of the case from the point of view of hostility, stating that the case is unfair in essence, and asked that the rejection be decided.

Made for under my jurisdiction as a result of the reversal by the court, the plaintiff’s case with the subject PTT Kargo laptop 2.700,00 TL PTT sent to Kashan value placed on the computer where the cargo is safely delivered, the recipient against the son went to her house and pick up cargo boxes cargo off due to the fact that he couldn’t control, which gives rise to the impression that the outer appearance is not damaged because of the view, and the video card in the computer at home opens the cargo that was broken when you saw the part of the reader, the damage occurred as a result of the defendant’s defective cargo transportation service, on the grounds that, with the acceptance of the case; the subject of the case, Sony Vaio PCG-81212 understood that the defendant’s laptop was damaged due to transport cargo brand, although it is the price 2.700,00 TL with legal interest from the date of collecting from the defendant the case was decided.

The decision was appealed by the deputy defendant.

According to the information and documents contained in the case file, there are no procedural and legal aspects in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification for the court’s decision, all appeals by the defendant’s attorney are out of place.

Conclusion: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 26.06.2014 that the defendant’s attorney should reject all appeals and APPROVE the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, and that the following balance of 138.35 TL of the appeal fee should be taken from the appellant.