Supreme Court Decision Concerning All Drivers

On March 15, 2012, a very rare event happened to a driver named FD, who bought a brand new car. Stating that he had his vehicle regularly maintained and that the vehicle did not start without warning when he wanted to start his vehicle again after 4 years, FD said that after taking the vehicle to the service with a tow truck. timing belt broke learned.

FD, who took his breath in the Consumer Court, in the expert report It is not possible to damage the timing belt of a vehicle at 52 thousand kilometers. He stated that the malfunction in the vehicle was caused by a manufacturing defect.

Court found driver, Supreme Court found manufacturer faulty

In the expert report prepared, the sales price of the car, which is 65 thousand TL, and the depreciation of 1000 TL, will be monitored as of 15.03.2012. reimbursement to the driver with statutory interest requested.

The dealer, to whom F. D is the defendant, filed a petition with the court, stating that the plaintiff did not have the car serviced on time and the timing belt broke for this reason. The court, on the other hand, found the dealer’s petition justified and concluded that the driver was at fault. your vehicle that the complaint has expired because the warranty period has expired The court denied the driver’s request for compensation.

Following this decision, FD took the case to the high court. Timing chain maintenance It should be done on vehicles between 120 thousand and 180 thousand kilometers. stating that the Supreme Court decided to overturn the decision of the Consumer Court, using the following statements; “It has been stated that the timing chain broken when the vehicle in question was at 56,285 kilometers was not a user error, but was caused by a production and material error.

Although the court; Although it was decided to reject the lawsuit on the grounds that it was not filed within the warranty period, since it was understood that the said malfunction could not be caused by use, and that the breaking of the timing chain, which was kept closed to external interventions, was a hidden shame due to the defendant’s grave fault, it is not possible to mention the completion of the statute of limitations against this defect. There is no legal regulation that prevents the plaintiff from filing such a lawsuit based on the warranty provisions.

While the court had to examine the merits of the dispute within the framework of these principles, the rejection of the case was contrary to the procedure and the law and required reversal. It was unanimously decided to annul the decision of the Regional Court of Justice and to overturn the judgment of the Consumer Court.”