The Responsibility of the Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal of Money After the Jamming of the Debit Card Examples of the Decision of the Court of Cassation

T.C.
SUPREME
11. law office
E. 2014/1535
K. 2014/2391
T. 12.2.2014
In the case between the parties … 2. Dec. 16/01/2013 trade date, and is actually given by the court 2012/103-examination of the defendant’s attorney filed by Decision No. 2013/6 Yargitayca the petition of Appeal is given within the period of being understood, and with the audit report to file a claim held by a judge rested, 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:
DECISION : the plaintiff, on Saturday morning 03/03/2007 08:00 … …’in Sin the bank card is blocked if customer service hours 08:20 he couldn’t get despite calls from mobile phone, home phone call from her daughter then told her to cancel the card and waiting until the next, when he went to the bank on the first business day on 05/03/2007 total on 03/03/2007 3.720,00 TL learned that debit card was taken by the bank by claiming that they were victimized due to not taking enough precaution, He demanded and sued for the collection of 3.720,00 TL together with the default interest. The defendant’s counsel, clients’operations from the bank are not responsible for doing their own passwords, bank customers out of what they need to do when warning about writings detained on the card, a debit card for cash withdrawals have to be known and the password is password storage that belongs to the customer of the obligation, the bank’s arguing about whether they are free of defects, has asked for a dismissal. By the court, according to the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and file; the defendant bank did not provide the necessary technical equipment to prevent the bank card from being jammed, the account balance and the card were not blocked and detained in case the card was jammed, … did not equip the location of the device with a camera-recording system, … was not installed in a single closed cabin and during the use of the plaintiff’s card
it was decided to accept the case and collect TL 3,720.00 from the defendant together with the default interest on the grounds that the plaintiff did not take measures to protect the cardholder and bank accounts, such as not taking precautions to prevent monitoring and interference by third parties, and the defendant was responsible for all the damage. The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
According to the information and documents in the case file, the fact that there is no aspect contrary to the procedure and law in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification of the court decision, all the appeals of the defendant’s attorney are not in place.
CONCLUSION : Due to the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 12.02.2014 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 appeal judgment fee of TL 190.10, the balance of which is written below, from the appellant.

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