T.C.
\nSUPREME
\n11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
\nE. 2016\/4862
\nK. 2017\/3347
\nT. 5.6.2017
\nIn the case between the parties … 5. Actually given by the court in accordance with the regulations of the trade to disrupt
\nCourt of Cassation review of decision no: 2014\/925-2015\/813 dated 15\/10\/2015 defendant … acting
\nhaving been requested by and understood to have been granted within the duration of the appeal,
\nAfter the report prepared by the examination Judge has been heard and again the petition in the file, ,
\nthe minutes of the hearing and all the documents were read and examined and then discussed and considered for the purpose of the work.:
\nVerdict: the plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client had a debit card attached to his account in the defendant …,
\n02.11.2008 Sunday, the other defendant may also use the debit card belonging to the defendant … \u2026
\nif you want to use your card at the ATM in your branch, the card is blocked and the next day belongs to the same account
\nhe said that his client, who checked his account with the other card, saw that his money was missing,
\nthey cannot provide the necessary security,the loss due to the theft of the card is 3,100. 00 TL forward
\nwith the advance interest of this amount applied for short-term advances as of 03.11.2008
\ntogether they demanded and sued the defendants to decide their collection.
\nDefendant …. the deputy, has objected to the animosity, card, as well as the password to third parties
\nthat the claimant who transmits or rings, does not inform the client bank in its time, is at fault
\nhe pleaded guilty to a motion to dismiss.
\nThe other defendant’s deputy was next to the plaintiff when his card was jammed, according to security camera footage
\nhe told the incoming person the combination of his card, tried to help the plaintiff, and failed.
\nthe plaintiff left the ATM, then the unidentified person came and took the plaintiff’s card
\nhe dismissed the case, arguing that the plaintiff had not been attentive in concealing his password
\nhe must have wanted to.
\nAccording to the scope of the whole file, in accordance with the court’s injunction, the plaintiff, the defendant …
\nwhen he wants to use his debit card …from his bank ATM to his existing deposit account
\n… Bank ATM where the card remains, then to receive the card 3.the persons the plaintiff spoke to, but
\n3 after leaving the ATM, where he couldn’t get his card.by removing the card from the ATM …
\nMoney was taken from the claimant’s account using ATMs, according to the expert report received by the claimant
\n10% of the claimant, 20% of the Bank, 70% of the Bank are responsible for the occurrence of the damages.,
\nin respect of their responsibilities, the defendants are responsible for the compensation of the plaintiff’s damages of TL 3,100. 00,
\nthe case was partly on the grounds that legal interest should be applied as the deposit was understood to be non-commercial
\nwith the acceptance of 2,790 TL 2,170 of the defendant … and 620 TL of the bank … to be responsible
\nDecision to be taken from the defendants and given to the plaintiff with legal interest from 03\/11\/2008
\nhas been given.
\nThe decision is appealed by the defendant … his attorney.
\nThe articles in the file, the court complied with the verdict in accordance with the annulment decision and the evidence
\nsince there was no impropriety in his discretion, the defendant … has all the appeals of his attorney in place.
\nis not.
\nConclusion: for the reasons described above, the defendant … with the rejection of all appeals by his deputy
\nto uphold the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, the balance below is TL 100.58 appeal notice
\nit was unanimously decided on 05.06.2017 that the fee should be taken from the defendant … who appealed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 11. LEGAL DEPARTMENT E. 2016\/4862 K. 2017\/3347 T. 5.6.2017 In the case between the parties … 5. Actually given by the court in accordance with the regulations of the trade to disrupt Court of Cassation review of decision no: 2014\/925-2015\/813 dated 15\/10\/2015 defendant…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,289,288,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n