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 and considered: DECISION : the plaintiff, on Saturday morning 03/03/2007 08:00 … …’in Sin the bank card has been blocked, 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 due to not taking enough precaution by claiming that they were victimized, 3.720,00 TL has prosecuted his education in conjunction with the interest and demand.
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, … the location of the device camera- with registration system to furnish …’s cabin and the card should not be established within a single closed during the use of the plaintiff’s monitoring and intervention of third parties, as the plaintiff did not take measures on prevention of the cardholder and the bank did not take measures to protect your accounts from harm on the grounds that the defendant was responsible, upon the adoption of the case, 3.720,00 TL along with the interest from the defendant, it was decided to collecting. 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 : For the reasons described above, with the rejection of all appeals of the defendant’s attorney
upon APPROVAL of the provision found in accordance with the procedure and the law, the balance written below is 190,10 TL appeal decision
it was unanimously decided on 12.02.2014 that the fee should be taken from the appellant.

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