[ad_1]
The consumer, who ordered to be informed in case of the spending limit of the credit card that he issued from a private bank, experienced the shock of his life with the foreclosure coming to his house. The General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, which finalized the case brought to court, ruled that the bank acted against the instructions.
NY gave it to his brother to use a credit card he took from a private bank branch. He gave a written instruction to the bank, saying: “I want to be notified by SMS when the expense reaches 700 TL”. The third person who intercepted the credit card used by his brother continued to use it. Although the spending limit of the card exceeded 700 lira, the bank branch allegedly did not notify the cardholder. When the bank branch knocked on the consumer’s door for the accumulated debt, the consumer had to pay the money when they initiated a withholding process for collection. The victim consumer, on the other hand, filed a lawsuit against the suspect who seized the card information and spent money. In the 7th Criminal Court of First Instance on the accused, law no. A criminal case was filed within the scope of the article. The accused was sentenced to prison. The consumer, who wanted to collect the money he had to pay in this process, filed a lawsuit against both the defendant and the bank branch in the 2nd Consumer Court. He affirmed that the defendant bank did not inform him, although the amount of his expenses exceeded 700 TL, so he was joint and several with the other defendant, and asked the defendants to collect collectively and jointly the expenses made with credit card without your knowledge and consent. The defendant bank’s lawyer stated that the plaintiff shared his password by handing over his credit card to another person with his consent, that the expenses were made with a password, that his client had no obligation to inform the plaintiff about each expense made, and that the plaintiff was completely defective and requested the dismissal of the case.
2. The Consumer Court drew attention to the fact that the defendant defendant spent the plaintiff’s credit card without the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent and that the aforementioned defendant was convicted as a result of the criminal trial. The defendant was found responsible for all expenses and the plaintiff had a 50 percent misalignment in passing the card and information to a third party. He emphasized that the defendant bank did not send an informational message to the plaintiff despite the plaintiff’s order, it did not comply with the obligation of objective diligence, and sending a message could prevent further damage. Cut; On the basis that the defendant bank was defective at a 50 percent rate, it was decided to accept the case from the defendant’s side and partially from the bank’s side. The 19th Legal Department of the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the decision when both parties appealed the decision. In the decision, it was stated that the credit card should, as a general rule, be used by the cardholder whose name is written on the card and in accordance with the provisions of the credit card contract; It was emphasized that the consumer offered the card for his brother’s use against the rules. Circle; By emphasizing that the bank was not at fault, the court ruled reversing the verdict. At the retrial, the Second Consumer Court ruled that the defendant and the bank that stole the card information in the incident, resisting in their first decision, were at fault for the incident. When the defendants appealed the decision, the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation intervened.
Having signed a preceding decision, the General Assembly decided to resist the court’s decision. In the decision adopted by the General Assembly by majority vote; It was emphasized that Plaintiff NY acted against the credit card agreement by allowing his brother to use his credit card. It was recalled that the plaintiff, who owns a credit card, ordered the bank to be informed by SMS if his term expenses reached 700 TL; “The scope of the file and the existence of the instructions were determined from the recorded phone calls. Although the spending limit of the card exceeded 700 TL together with the plaintiff’s expenses, the plaintiff was not informed. The accused defendant continued to shop with a credit card and the amount subject to the case was reached. Since the bank failed to comply with the notification obligation despite the plaintiff’s instruction, the bank caused an increase in the fault loss. Since the increased loss will be avoided if the bank sends an SMS message, it must be accepted that the banks, which are trust institutions, are liable for the plaintiff’s damage, even for minor misconduct as a requirement of the objective diligence debt. During the meetings held in the General Assembly of Law, it was stated that the cardholder who transfers his credit card to another person on his own will will be responsible for the expenses made with this card, there is no fault attributable to the defendant bank and therefore therefore the provision should be reversed, but this opinion was not adopted by the majority of the Board. . In this case; The resistance decision given by the local court that the bank is also at fault is justified. However, since the Special Office does not examine the defect rate, the file must be sent to the Special Office for investigation. The decision to resist was made and it was decided by majority vote to forward the file to the XIX Legal Department of the Court of Cassation for the examination of other appeal objections related to the list of offenses ”.
