Alleged Sale Of A Vehicle With Tampered Mileage, Incomplete Expert Report
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 13th Civil Chamber
CASE NO: 2015/16613
DECISION NO: 2017/2063
Following the trial of the claim for payment between the parties, the judgment dismissing the claim for the reasons stated in the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the prescribed time limit. The case file was reviewed, and the matter was discussed and considered.
DECISION
The plaintiff saw and liked the vehicle with license plate number 06 A… on the internet and purchased it for TL 17,250.00 after negotiating with the defendant at the Ostim car market. When they took the vehicle to the service center, a number of faults were detected. Since the defendant refused to reach an agreement, an expert opinion was obtained, which determined that the vehicle’s mileage had been tampered with. The plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the additional 4,250.00 TL paid due to the loss in value of the vehicle, along with legal interest from the date of the notice of default, June 13, 2012.
The defendant argued for the dismissal of the case.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the reduction in mileage, which was alleged to be a hidden defect, occurred after the date of sale and therefore the defendant seller could not be held responsible. The plaintiff appealed the ruling.
The court found that the expert report on which the judgment was based was not sufficient to clarify the incident. It is clear that the expert reached his conclusion by evaluating the file without personally examining the vehicle, did not provide information about the relevant testing institutions regarding the determination of the vehicle’s actual mileage and the methods used, and thus did not produce a report suitable for review by the parties, the court, and the Court of Cassation. Although it was submitted at the appeal stage, the plaintiff’s … It is understood that the Auto Test service record essentially indicates this lack of examination. In this case, it is necessary to obtain an audit-compatible report by forming an expert or expert panel specializing in the subject matter, taking into account the above-mentioned issues, and to make a decision based on the result. However, it is contrary to procedure and law to make a written decision based on an expert report based on an incomplete examination, and it is a reason for reversal.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the judgment is REVERSED in favor of the plaintiff. Pursuant to Article 440/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision is subject to appeal within 15 days of notification. The decision was made unanimously on February 20, 2017.