Examples Of Supreme Court Decisions Regarding The Bank’s Liability For Unauthorized Withdrawals Following ATM Card Jams
Republic of Turkey
COURT OF CASSATION
11th CIVIL CHAMBER
E. 2014/1535
K. 2014/2391
T. 12.2.2014
In the case between the parties, the defendant’s representative requested that the Supreme Court review the decision dated 16/01/2013 and numbered 2012/103-2013/6 issued by the 2nd Civil Commercial Court. within the prescribed time limit, the case file was reviewed by the Examining Judge … and the report prepared by him was heard, and the petition, pleadings, trial minutes, and
all documents in the file were read and examined, and the matter was discussed and considered:
DECISION: The plaintiff stated that on Saturday, March 3, 2007, at around 8:00 a.m., his bank card was blocked at … … blocked, that despite calling customer service on his cell phone starting at 08:20, he was unable to reach anyone, that he then told his daughter to call from the home phone and waited at … until the card was canceled, that when he went to the bank on the first business day, 05/03/2007, he learned that a total of 3,720.00 TL had been withdrawn with the bank card on 03/03/2007 a total of 3,720.00 TL had been withdrawn from his bank card on 03/03/2007. He claimed that he was victimized due to the bank’s failure to take sufficient precautions and demanded the collection of 3,720.00 TL with default interest
and filed a lawsuit.
The defendant’s representative argued that the bank was not responsible for transactions made by customers in … with their own passwords, that warning notices were issued to customers on what they should do when their bank card was retained,
that a bank card and knowledge of the password were required to withdraw money, is the customer’s responsibility, and that the bank is not at fault, requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed.
Based on the allegations, the defense, the expert report, and the case file, the court ruled that the defendant bank to prevent the card from getting stuck, the account balance and the card were not blocked and confiscated when the card got stuck, the location of the … device was not equipped with a camera recording system,…
was not installed in a single-person closed cabin, and no measures were taken to prevent third parties from watching and interfering with the plaintiff’s card use, the defendant bank failed to take measures to protect the cardholder and bank accounts, and bank accounts, and that the defendant is liable for the entire damage, the case was accepted, and it was decided that 3,720.00 TL, plus default interest, should be collected from the defendant.
The defendant’s representative appealed the decision.
Based on the information and documents in the case file, and the fact that there is no procedural or legal violation in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied upon in the reasoning of the court decision, all of the defendant’s attorney’s appeals are unfounded.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, all appeals of the defendant’s attorney are rejected, the ruling is upheld as being in accordance with procedure and law, the remaining 190.10 TL appeal fee is to be collected from the appellant, and it was unanimously decided on 12.02.2014.