EXAMPLES OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BANK FOR UNAUTHORIZED WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS AFTER THE JAMMING OF A DEBIT CARD

T.C.
SUPREME

11. law office
    E. 2016/4862
    K. 2017/3347
    T. 5.6.2017
    In the dec between the parties … 5. Issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance in accordance with the violation
    examination of the decision dated 15/10/2015 and numbered 2014/925-2015/813 by the Supreme Court defendant … deputy
    it has been requested by the court and it is understood that the appeal has been filed within the period of the petition, but for the case file
    After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge … and again the petition in the file, layihalar,
    after the minutes of the hearing and all the documents were read and examined, they were discussed and considered as necessary for the job:
    VERDICT : The deputy plaintiff stated that his client had a debit card linked to the defendant’s account,
    on Sunday, 02.11.2008, the defendant … the other defendant’s debit card can also be used …
    the card was blocked when I wanted to use the card at the ATM in the branch, the next day it belongs to the same account
    checking his account with the other card, he saw that his client’s money was missing, the defendants
    he claimed that they could not provide the necessary security, and that the damage caused by the theft of his card was 3,100.00 TL
    by continuing, this amount will be charged at the advance interest applied for short-term advances as of 03.11.2008
    together they have requested and sued for a decision on the collection of the defendants.
    Defendant …. his deputy has filed an objection to hostility, as well as his card and password to third parties
    the plaintiff who transmits or steals it, does not notify the client bank during the period, is defective
    he has asked for the case to be dismissed by arguing.
    The other defendant’s deputy, according to the security camera recordings, was next to the plaintiff when his card was jammed
    that he told the incoming person the password for his card, that the person was trying to help the plaintiff, when he did not succeed
    the plaintiff left the ATM, then the unidentified person came and took the plaintiff’s card
    he refused to dismiss the case, arguing that he had gone, that the plaintiff had not been attentive to hide his password
    he probably did.
    In accordance with the court’s decision to cancel, according to the scope of the entire file; plaintiff, defendant … before the Bank
    during the request to use the debit card from the Bank’s ATM to the current deposit account
    … Where the card is left at the ATM of the bank, or 3 for the receipt of the card.the plaintiff speaks to the persons, but
12. after leaving the ATM, he could not get his card.by removing the card from the ATM by people … Bank
    According to the expert report received, money was taken from the plaintiff’s account using ATMs of the plaintiff
    the plaintiff is responsible for 10%, 20% of the Bank, 70% of the Bank in the formation of damages,
    according to their responsibilities, the defendants are responsible for compensation for the plaintiff’s damages of 3,100.00 TL,
    since it is understood that the deposit is not commercial, the case is partly on the grounds that legal interest should be applied
    upon acceptance, the defendant will be responsible for 2.170 TL of 2.790 TL and the Bank will be responsible for 620 TL
    as of 03/11/2008, the decision to be taken from the defendants together with the legal interest and given to the plaintiff
    has been given.
    The decision was appealed by the defendant … the deputy.
    The articles in the file must have been ruled in accordance with the court’s decision to overturn, and the evidence
    in the absence of a violation of his discretion, the defendant … has all the appeals of his attorney in place
    is not.
    CONCLUSION : For the reasons described above, the defendant … with the rejection of all appeals of his deputy
    for APPROVAL of the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, the balance written below is 100.58 TL appeal
    the receipt of the fee from the appellant defendant … was decided unanimously on 05.06.2017.