{"id":2028,"date":"2023-10-08T01:14:07","date_gmt":"2023-10-07T22:14:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/atmye-kartini-kaptiranlar-dikkat.html"},"modified":"2023-10-08T01:14:07","modified_gmt":"2023-10-07T22:14:07","slug":"atmye-kartini-kaptiranlar-dikkat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/atmye-kartini-kaptiranlar-dikkat.html","title":{"rendered":"ATM’YE KARTINI KAPTIRANLAR D\u0130KKAT!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

\u0130\u00e7tihat b\u00fclteninden edinilen bilgiye g\u00f6re, \u201cDavac\u0131 L.\u00d6. para \u00e7ekmek i\u00e7in m\u00fc\u015fterisi oldu\u011fu banka kart\u0131n\u0131 bir ba\u015fka bankan\u0131n ATM cihaz\u0131na yerle\u015ftirdi, ancak kart ATM i\u00e7ine girdikten sonra ekran ar\u0131zas\u0131 kodu verdi. Cihaz taraf\u0131ndan karta el konuldu. Rahats\u0131z olan e\u015fini hastaneye yeti\u015ftirmesi gereken L.\u00d6. kart\u0131n\u0131 iade alamay\u0131p, kart\u0131na el konulmas\u0131yla iptal i\u015flemine ili\u015fkin olarak bankaya herhangi bir bildirimde yapamad\u0131. 2 g\u00fcn sonra internet hesab\u0131na giren L.\u00d6. kart\u0131ndan 10 bin 500 TL nakit \u00e7ekim ile 8 bin 660 TL harcama olmak \u00fczere toplam 19 bin 160 TL’nin iradesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00e7ekildi\u011fini fark etti. Bunun \u00fczerine bankayla irtibata ge\u00e7en L.\u00d6. Cumhuriyet Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131na da su\u00e7 duyurusunda bulundu.<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

L.\u00d6.’n\u00fcn avukat\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla daval\u0131 bankaya ihtarname g\u00f6nderilse de banka taraf\u0131ndan herhangi bir \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan; daval\u0131 banka aleyhine \u0130stanbul 32. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2012\/38.4 E. say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile icra takibi ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131. Daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z itiraz etmesi \u00fczerine takibin durdu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek itiraz\u0131n iptali ile takibin devam\u0131na, daval\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n y\u00fczde 40’\u0131 oran\u0131nda icra ink\u00e2r tazminat\u0131na mahk\u00fbm edilmesine karar verilmesini\u201d talep ve dava etti.<\/p>\n

Daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n avukat\u0131 cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; \u201cATM cihaz\u0131na s\u0131k\u0131\u015fan kart\u0131 L.\u00d6.’n\u00fcn iade alamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ifade edilse de \u015fifrenin di\u011fer \u015fah\u0131slar\u0131n eline ge\u00e7meden kart\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n 17.01.2012 tarihinde kart\u0131n kapat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurdu\u011funu ve m\u00fcvekkili banka taraf\u0131ndan kart\u0131n hemen kapat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hatan\u0131n davac\u0131dan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kart ve \u015fifrenin birlikte kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 nedeniyle nakit i\u015flemlerdeki sorumlulu\u011fun davac\u0131 kart hamiline ait oldu\u011funu belirterek davan\u0131n reddini\u201d savundu.<\/p>\n

Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi her iki taraf\u0131 e\u015fit kusurlu sayd\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u0130stanbul 7. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi, \u201c08.05.2015 tarihli ve 2014\/816 E., 2015\/340 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 75. maddesine g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu durumu vakit ge\u00e7irmeksizin bankaya bildirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu, bu madde ile 5464 say\u0131l\u0131 Banka Kartlar\u0131 ve Kredi Kartlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun 16. maddesi birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, davac\u0131n\u0131n vakit ge\u00e7irmeksizin daval\u0131 bankay\u0131 durumdan haberdar etmemesinin ve ayr\u0131ca kart \u015fifresini gere\u011fi gibi muhafaza etmemesinin davac\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden m\u00fcterafik kusur te\u015fkil edece\u011fi, daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n ise ATM cihaz\u0131nda yeterli \u00f6nlem ve tedbir al\u0131nmayarak banka kart\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli ki\u015filerin elde etmesine ve kullanmas\u0131na imkan vermesiyle davac\u0131 hesab\u0131ndan nakit para \u00e7ekilmesi ve al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda kusurunun bulundu\u011fu, ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan zarardan sorumlulu\u011funun do\u011faca\u011f\u0131, olay\u0131n olu\u015fumuna g\u00f6re davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n m\u00fcterafik kusurlu g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fckleri, taraflar\u0131n m\u00fcterafik kusur oranlar\u0131 y\u00fczde 50 kabul edilerek karar verilmesinin hakkaniyete uygun olaca\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n icra takibine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 itiraz\u0131n k\u0131smen iptalinin gerekti\u011fi, alacak likit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve miktar\u0131 yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 gerektirdi\u011finden davac\u0131 lehine icra ink\u00e2r tazminat\u0131na h\u00fckmedilemeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne\u201d karar verdi. Mahkemenin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 banka vekili ve kat\u0131lma yoluyla davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulundu.<\/p>\n

Yarg\u0131tay 19’uncu Hukuk Dairesi (kapat\u0131lan) karar\u0131 bozdu<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yarg\u0131tay 19. Hukuk Dairesi, \u201cDava, bankan\u0131n kusuru nedeniyle banka kart\u0131 harcamalar\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsili i\u00e7in ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibine itiraz\u0131n iptaline ili\u015fkindir. Olayda banka kart\u0131n\u0131n ATM’ de s\u0131k\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 nedeniyle davac\u0131 kart\u0131n elinden iradesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, harcama yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazminini istemi\u015ftir. Ancak kart\u0131n elinden \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131ndan sonra hemen bankaya ihbarda bulunmam\u0131\u015f, 3 g\u00fcn sonra ihbarda bulunmu\u015ftur. Harcamada bu 3 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131 tam kusurlu kabul edilerek bankaya herhangi bir kusur izafe edilemeyece\u011finden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015f,\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131 bozdu.<\/p>\n

\u0130stanbul 7. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi, \u201c20.09.2019 tarihli ve 2019\/163 E., 2019\/532 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u00f6nceki karar gerek\u00e7esi yan\u0131nda, davac\u0131n\u0131n ATM’de s\u0131k\u0131\u015fan kart\u0131n\u0131 bulundu\u011fu yerden \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131p ilgili bankaya teslim edecek olan ATM’nin sahibi olan T.\u0130. Bankas\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n kart\u0131n\u0131n ATM’de s\u0131k\u0131\u015fmas\u0131ndan \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcn sonra durumun daval\u0131 bankaya bildirmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan limit d\u0131\u015f\u0131 harcamalarda daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n kart sahibine bilgi verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ortadan kald\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bu durum da daval\u0131 bankan\u0131n meydana gelen zararda hukuk\u00ee sorumlulu\u011funun en az davac\u0131 kadar bulundu\u011fu\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verdi. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edildi.<\/p>\n

Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu: “Bankaya bildirimde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in kart sahibi sorumludur”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, \u201cL.\u00d6. kart\u0131n elinden \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131ndan sonra hemen bankaya ihbarda bulunmam\u0131\u015f, \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcn sonra ihbarda bulunmu\u015f ve belirtilen harcamalarda bu \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde kredi kart\u0131 limiti dahilinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Oysa ki taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 75. maddesine g\u00f6re davac\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu durumu vakit ge\u00e7irmeksizin bankaya bildirmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu madde ile birlikte 5464 say\u0131l\u0131 Banka Kartlar\u0131 ve Kredi Kartlar\u0131 Kanunu’nun \u201cBildirim zorunlulu\u011fu\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 16. maddesindeki; “Kart hamili, kendisine tevdi edilen kart\u0131 ve kart\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 bir kod numaras\u0131, \u015fifre veya kimli\u011fi belirleyici ba\u015fka bir y\u00f6ntemin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektiriyorsa bu bilgileri g\u00fcvenli bir \u015fekilde korumak ve ba\u015fkalar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lmas\u0131na engel olacak \u00f6nlemleri almak, kart\u0131n kaybolmas\u0131, \u00e7al\u0131nmas\u0131 veya iradesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f herhangi bir i\u015flemi \u00f6\u011frenmesi halinde kart \u00e7\u0131karan kurulu\u015fu derhal haberdar etmek zorundad\u0131r” h\u00fckm\u00fc birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde davac\u0131 kart hamili eldeki davada a\u011f\u0131r kusurlu olup, daval\u0131 bankay\u0131 sorumlu tutmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n

Zira; 5464 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 15. ve 16. maddelerine g\u00f6re, banka kart\u0131n\u0131n ve banka kart\u0131na ait \u015fifrenin korunmas\u0131 y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kart hamiline y\u00fcklenmi\u015ftir. Kart hamili kart ve \u015fifre ile hesab\u0131 \u00fczerinde belirlenen limit dahilinde i\u015flem yapabilecek ve tasarrufa bulunabilecektir.<\/p>\n

Her ne kadar bir g\u00fcven kurumu olmas\u0131 nedeniyle en hafif kusurundan dahi sorumlu tutulan bankan\u0131n ATM cihaz\u0131nda yeterli \u00f6nlemi almad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kusurlu oldu\u011fu ve do\u011fan zarardan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclse bile, olayda \u015fifrenin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerce ele ge\u00e7irilmesinde davac\u0131 kart hamilinin a\u011f\u0131r kusuru bulundu\u011fundan, daval\u0131 banka bak\u0131m\u0131ndan do\u011fan zarar ile kusur aras\u0131nda ba\u011f kesilmi\u015f olup davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekir\u201d diyerek yerel mahkemenin direnme karar\u0131n\u0131 bozdu.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yarg\u0131tay, bankamatik ar\u0131zas\u0131 ya\u015fayan m\u00fc\u015fterileri ilgilendiren emsal bir karara imza att\u0131. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, “Banka kart\u0131n\u0131n ATM cihaz\u0131nda s\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131p iade al\u0131namamas\u0131ndan sonra zaman\u0131nda bankaya bildirimde bulunmayan kart sahibi, ortaya \u00e7\u0131kacak zarardan sorumludur” dedi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2029,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gundem"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2028","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2028"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2028\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2029"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netonda.com.tr\/marmara\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}