Precedent Decision Concerning the Car With Gasoline Instead of Diesel

One of the things that any driver in the world fears most is his car. is the wrong fuel. Even though the smart pumps used in many fuel stations now prevent this, problems can still occur from time to time. Moreover, if this mistake occurs, the process is quite difficult for the vehicle owner. expensive and it becomes a protracted situation. Such an event also took place in Turkey a few years ago and was even brought to court.

According to the information obtained, a pumper put gasoline instead of diesel, causing a citizen’s vehicle to malfunction. Unfortunate citizen, on this event By spending 23 thousand 567 TL He had his vehicle repaired. However, the citizen, who wanted compensation for his loss in this process, went to court. Consumer court, your citizen He proved right and decided that the cost should be covered by the gas station. Upon appeal of the decision 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme CourtA precedent decision came from.

The Supreme Court ruled that the responsibility lies with both the service provider and the gas station.

In the precedent decision of the Supreme Court, the owner of the vehicle is faultless revealed. In the written decision of the higher court, the following statements were included:

Partial acceptance of the case by the court, as the cost of damaged parts and labor. 27 thousand 256 TL 15 thousand 600 TL of the receivable from the date of the lawsuit, 11 thousand 656 TL starting from the date of correction, 30.03.2016, together with the legal interest mentioned above. taken from the defendant awarded to the plaintiff.

A total of 6 thousand 490 TL, which is the cost of towing expenses, car rental, distribution and collection of the vehicle, will be processed as of the date of the lawsuit. with statutory interest It was decided to buy it from the defendant dealer together.

Plaintiff, by the defendant fuel station employees by putting the wrong fuel in his vehicle. the damages suffered asked for compensation. In the main case, the court decided that the defendant’s fuel station partially It was decided to accept the case and it was decided to reject the case on the grounds that there was no fault in the occurrence of the damage in terms of the other defendant company.

First of all, it should be noted that in the concrete case, one of the defendants is that the other fuel station operated by the fuel station the defendant company is a dealerbetween the parties in cases where the vehicle malfunctioned due to the wrong fuel being put into the vehicle belonging to the plaintiff by the employee of the dealer. there is no conflict.

The dispute is gathered at the point of whether the provider has joint responsibility due to the service provided by the dealer. Accordingly, the consumer expects in terms of the benefit determined in the advertisements and advertisements reported by the provider. eliminating the benefits Since there is a service with material deficiencies, there is a defective service in accordance with the first paragraph of article 4/A of the aforementioned Law. Provider and dealer pursuant to the third paragraph of article 4/A from faulty service and all kinds of damages caused by the defective service and the consumer’s optional rights in this article.

Moreover, the service provided is defective. not knowing does not relieve this responsibility. Ignoring this issue explained by the court, it is against the procedure and the law to dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant’s office did not have any fault in causing the damage. requires breaking. It was unanimously decided to quash the judgment of the court.