Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
31/12/2022

Responsibility of the Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal of Money After Jamming of the Debit Card

Rabia Ekşi Uncategorized @tr alanya, antalya, law, lawyer, mahmutlar

T.C.
SUPREME
11. law office
E. 2016/4862
K. 2017/3347
T. 5.6.2017
In the case between the parties … 5. Dec. Granted by the Commercial Court of First Instance in compliance with the distortion
examination of the decision dated 15/10/2015 and numbered 2014/925-2015/813 by the Court of Cassation the defendant … deputy
although it has been requested by the applicant and it has been understood that the appeal has been submitted within the time limit, for the case file
After hearing the report prepared by the Examination Judge … and again the petition in the file, the merits,
after the hearing minutes and all documents were read and examined, the requirements of the work were discussed and considered:
DECISION : the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, his client …’s account linked to a debit card that has 02.11.2008 on the day of Sunday, belonging to the defendant …the defendant debit card can be used at the ATM at the branch where other when they want to use your card, the card is blocked if the other card with the same account that belong to your checking account the next day he saw that client money was missing, the defendants have not the necessary security, loss due to theft of the card 3.100,00 TL citing, he requested and sued that a decision be made to collect this amount from the defendants together with the advance interest applied for short-term advances as of 03.11.2008.
Defendant …. his attorney filed a hostility objection, requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff, who transmitted or stole his password to third parties as well as his card, did not inform the client bank about this during the period, was defective.
The other defendant’s attorney, according to the security camera recordings, told the password of his card to the person who came to the plaintiff after his card got stuck, the person tried to help the plaintiff, when he failed, the plaintiff left the ATM, then the unidentified person came and took the plaintiff’s card
he asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that he had left and that the plaintiff had not been careful about hiding his password.
According to the scope of the entire file by complying with the decision of the court to overturn; during the plaintiff’s request to use the debit card from the Bank’s ATM to the defendant’s existing deposit account with the Bank, the card was left at the Bank’s ATM, and then 3 to receive the card.the plaintiff talked to the persons, but could not get his card, after leaving the ATM, 3.according to the expert report received, money was taken from the plaintiff’s account by removing the card from the ATM by people … using it at Bank ATMs, the plaintiff is responsible for 10%, the Bank is responsible for 20%, the Bank is responsible for 70% in the formation of the plaintiff’s loss, according to the expert report received, as of their responsibilities, it was decided that the defendants were responsible for compensation for the plaintiff’s loss of 3.100,00 TL, and that legal interest should be applied on the grounds that the deposit was not commercial, and with partial acceptance of the case, the defendant received 2.170 TL of the 2.790 TL …, the Bank was responsible for 620 TL … from the defendants together with the legal interest from 03/11/2008, to be given to the plaintiff. The decision has been appealed by the defendant’s … attorney.
According to the articles in the file, the verdict was given in accordance with the decision of the court to overturn and there was no wrongdoing in the evaluation of the evidence, all the appeals of the defendant’s … attorney are not in place.
CONCLUSION : Due to the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 05.06.2017 to reject all the appeals objections of the defendant’s … attorney and to APPROVE the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, to collect the following balance of the appeal judgment fee of TL 100.58 from the appellant defendant …………..

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.

Long-Term Residence Permit BEKİR BOZDAĞ ‘İSTİNAF MAHKEMESİNİN ADINI DEĞİŞTİRİYORUZ

Related Posts

Uncategorized @tr

TBB BAŞKANI SAĞKAN 5 NİSAN AVUKATLAR GÜNÜNDE KONUŞMA YAPTI

Avukatlar, Türkiye Barolar Birliği’nin öncülüğünde 5 Nisan Avukatlar Günü’nde Ankara’da ‘Savunmanın Bağımsızlığı ve Hukuka Saygı’ yürüyüşü yaptı. Barolar adına konuşma yapan Türkiye Barolar Birliği Başkanı Av. R. Erinç Sağkan, “Biz bugün hukuk devletini savunmak için, yargı bağımsızlığını savunmak için buradayız. Bu ses susturulamaz” dedi. “İSTANBUL BAROSU, HUKUKA AYKIRI YARGI KARARLARIYLA GÖREVİNDEN UZAKLAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR” Anıtpark’ta bir […]

Uncategorized @tr

Determination and Recommendations regarding the Main Procedural Problems in Terms of Earthquake-Related Civil Cases

“It is Not Possible to Get Rid of the Responsibility of Those Responsible by Obscuring the Evidence of the Earthquake, On the Contrary, Their Responsibilities Increase” Prof. Dr. Muhammet Özekes (12.02.2023) If the CCP and procedural rules can be applied consciously, correctly and quickly, the judiciary can get out of this earthquake without being in […]

Uncategorized @tr

The Decision of the Council of State that the Consumer Bank Cannot Receive Account Operating Fees

COUNCIL OF STATE 15. apartment Basis: 2014/9570 Verdict: 2018/1194 Plaintiff : Consumer Problems Association Acting Director : Av… Respondent : Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency Acting Director : Av… Summary of the Case: Article 10 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles regarding Fees to be Collected from Financial Consumers, which entered into force […]

Uncategorized @tr

Negative Detection Case Based on the Guarantee Bond Claim, Exchange Monitoring Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME 19. law office MAIN NUMBER: 2016/3357 DECISION NO: 2016/13899 DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016 >> FOREIGN EXCHANGE MONITORING, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A SECURITY BILL, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STATE OF EVIDENCE 6100/m.222/5 6102/m.64 SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for negative determination. The plaintiff has […]

Uncategorized @tr

Traffic Accident, Wearing a Helmet Should Be Reduced by 20% – Supreme Court Decision

T.C SUPREME 17.law office MAIN NUMBER:2017/5716 DECISION NO:2018/1495 DECISION DATE: 01/03/2018 COURT : Court of First Instance >> SINCE THERE IS A MUTUAL DEFECT DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, NOT WEARING A HELMET, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A MUTUAL DEFECT DISCOUNT OF AT LEAST 20% ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED APPLICATIONS. At the end of […]

Back To Top
manavgat avukat

İletişim:

+905425139898

+902425139898

info@antalya.law

Adres

Hacet Mahallesi, Canlılar Sokak,
Avukatlar İş Merkezi, No: 7, Daire: 2-3
Alanya / Antalya

Copyright © 2020 Aşıkoğlu Hukuk ™ Aşıkoğlu Uluslararası Hukuk Bürosu, Her Hakkı Saklıdır

WhatsApp us