The Supreme Court of Appeals General Assembly signed a precedent decision concerning those who gave credit cards in trust. The Board ruled that “the parties are at joint fault” because the customer gave the credit card to the third party and the bank allowed spending over the limit.
In the petition of a plaintiff’s attorney; When he realized that his client SS had received a credit card with a limit of 4 thousand liras from the defendant bank and gave this credit card to his family friend E.İ. He claimed that he applied to the bank, but could not get results from his meetings with the bank, that he paid 19 thousand 700 liras of this amount to the bank in order not to be subject to enforcement proceedings, and that the amount of 15 thousand 700 liras, which is over the limit, was taken from his client unfairly because he had to bear the 4 thousand lira part of his card debt. by driving; demanded the return of the overpayment and the determination that his client was not in debt due to the remaining 28 thousand liras unpaid, and sued.
CASE PARTIALLY ACCEPTED
Since the consumer court allowed the defendant bank to use the credit card in excess of its limit, the plaintiff and the plaintiff have equal fault, half of the amount of 40,518 liras outside the limit of 4 thousand liras, half of which is the plaintiff and half of the defendant is responsible, and the plaintiff’s amount of liability is 19 thousand 700 liras paid to the bank. With the deduction of the payment, it was decided to partially accept the case and reject the request for the surplus on the grounds that the plaintiff was responsible for a total of 6 thousand 583 liras, of which 4 thousand 559 liras were actually receivable and 1 thousand 927 liras were accrued interest.
Supreme Court overturned its decision
The Court of Cassation Civil Chamber said, “The credit card subject to the lawsuit has been delivered to the plaintiff, and the credit card holder is responsible for all the transactions made by the person to whom the credit card is given voluntarily. For this reason, while the unprovable case should be rejected, it is wrong to partially accept the case that is not justified with a written justification”.
CONSUMER COURT DECIDES TO RESIST
In addition to the previous reasoning, the Consumer Court decided to resist, referring to Articles 15 and 16 of the Debit Cards and Credit Cards Law No. 5464, stating that the defendant bank should not approve the expenditures made above the limit and that it should take the necessary technical measures to ensure that the limit is not exceeded. The decision to resist was appealed by the attorneys of the parties within the time limit.
‘Both BANK AND CUSTOMER ARE DEFECTIVE’
On the other hand, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals said, “According to Articles 15 and 16 of the Law No. 5464, the obligation to protect the credit card and the password of the credit card is imposed on the card holder. With the card and password, the cardholder will be able to make transactions and make savings within the limit set on his account. The defendant bank should also not approve the expenditures made above the limit and take the necessary technical measures to ensure that the limit is not exceeded. However, the letter dated 05.10.2011, reproduced above, shows that the defendant Bank did not take the necessary measures in order not to exceed the card limit, and allowed over-limit spending due to a technical error in the system. As such; The decision of the local court to resist that both the plaintiff and the defendant bank are at fault is valid.” He found the decision of the Consumer Court to resist. The General Assembly of Laws concluded the case by finding both the plaintiff customer and the defendant bank to be jointly defective in terms of concrete dispute.