Court Of Cassation Decision Regarding The Damage To The Laptop Computer Due To The Defendant’s Fault During Cargo Transportation
T.C. JUDICIARY
11th Civil Chamber
Basis: 2014/6369
Decision: 2014/12272
Date of Decision: 26.06.2014
LAWSUIT FOR RECEIVABLES – IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LAPTOP COMPUTER WAS DAMAGED DUE TO THE DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE DURING CARGO TRANSPORTATION – IT WAS DECIDED TO COLLECT THE COST OF THE LAPTOP COMPUTER FROM THE DEFENDANT TOGETHER WITH LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE LAWSUIT – APPROVAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: In the concrete case, it was understood that the S… brand laptop computer subject to the lawsuit was damaged due to the defendant’s defect during the cargo transportation, and it was decided to collect the cost of … TL from the defendant together with legal interest from the date of the lawsuit.
(4077 S. K. art. 4/A) (6502 S. K. art. 13)
Case and Decision: In the case between the parties, the Supreme Court of Appeals has been requested by the defendant’s attorney for the review of the decision dated 10/12/2013 and numbered 2013/451-2013/430 given by the Zonguldak 2nd Civil Court of First Instance and it has been understood that the petition for appeal has been submitted within the time limit, and after listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge Tuğba Aldemir for the case file and after reading and examining the petitions, pleadings, hearing minutes and all documents within the file, the necessity of the matter was discussed and considered:
The plaintiff stated that on 23/03/2011, he sent a Sony Vaio PCG-81212 laptop computer with the number KP from the Kilimli PTT Directorate to be delivered to his son R. E. K., who was doing military service in Keşan District. The plaintiff stated that on 23/03/2011, he sent Sony Vaio PCG-81212 brand laptop computer as a valuable cargo with the number KP 01148703860 to be delivered to his son R. E. K., who was doing military service in Keşan District, when his son, who was the recipient, went to receive the cargo, he took the parcel home without any reservation because the parcel had a normal appearance in terms of its external appearance, when he opened the parcel, when he saw that the glass of the computer was broken and the card reader was collapsed inside, he applied to Keşan PTT and had a report issued, stating that PTT did not accept to pay the damage, and that the value placed on the cargo due to defective service was 2. 700.00 TL from the defendant together with legal interest.
The defendant’s attorney stated that the lawsuit was filed against the Kilimli PTT Directorate, which is not a legal entity, and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit in terms of hostility, and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit on the merits, stating that the lawsuit was unfair.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court within the scope of the reversal order, the plaintiff sent the laptop computer subject to the lawsuit by PTT cargo to Keşan PTT with a value of 2. 700,00 TL by PTT cargo to Keşan PTT, the computer was delivered to the cargo intact, his son, who was the recipient, took the cargo parcel from the opposite center and went home, he could not check the inside because the cargo was closed, it did not have an appearance that would give the impression that the inside was damaged, when he opened the cargo at home, he saw that the screen and card reader part of the computer was broken, the damage occurred as a result of the defendant’s defective cargo transportation service, with the acceptance of the lawsuit; It is understood that the Sony Vaio PCG-81212 brand laptop computer subject to the lawsuit was damaged by the defendant’s defect during the cargo transportation, and the cost of 2. 700,00 TL from the defendant together with legal interest from the date of the lawsuit.
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
According to the information and documents in the case file, and the fact that there is nothing contrary to the procedure and the law in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied on in the reasoning of the court decision, all appellate objections of the defendant’s attorney are not appropriate.
Conclusion For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 26.06.2014 that all the appellate objections of the defendant’s counsel be rejected and the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, be APPROVED, and that the remaining 138,35 TL appeal judgment fee written below be collected from the appellant.