If the consumer exceeds the quota, the GSM operator has an obligation to inform the consumer. In case of failure to fulfill this obligation, the operator’s responsibility will arise.

3.Civil Department
Base Number: 2014/20558

Decision Number: 2015/16478 K.

“text of jurisprudence”

DATE : 19/06/2014
NUMBER : 2013/40-2014/1531

As a result of the trial of the case arising from the Law on Consumer Protection between the parties, the decision to dismiss the case was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy within the time limit; after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were dec and considered necessary:


In the petition of the acting plaintiff, the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff was a member of this campaign in order to benefit from the connect card campaign that the defendant communication company is implementing for corporate subscribers, and the subscription agreement was signed between them on Dec. 14, 2008 ………. .” the tariff model is concluded with the name, this is the job “………..” according to the content of the campaign; a number of subscribers and this number is routed to the defendant by the company is given a device that, if the subscriber would be paid a fixed monthly fee for the use of 1 GB and usage rights, it was stated that the defendant in the month of January in 2009 in the way payments are made to the plaintiff when the defendant is also information that is sent from bank accounts controlled by the company on 27 67 338 0530 phone number 4.189 that was sent as a bill for the month of December in 2008, $ 30 on the invoice that was paid to the defendant and the state reported 08.01.2009; the defendant reported that the invoice was incorrect and that the price would be paid to them, but after this information, the defendant was repeatedly talked to the company and asked for a refund, each time it was said OK, but no refund could be received and enforcement proceedings were initiated, he demanded and sued to remove the unfair and malicious appeal and to award the defendant the highest amount of malicious compensation, not less than 40%, which is the defendant’s malicious compensation.
The defendant has requested that the case be dismissed.
As a result of the trial held by the local court, it was decided to partially accept the case; this decision was appealed by the attorneys of the parties.
According to the evidence on which the decision is based on the articles in the file, as well as for legally necessary reasons, and especially in the absence of a hit at the discretion of the evidence, all other appeals of the defendant’s attorney that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph of the plaintiff’s attorney must be rejected.
In the expert report based on the judgment; The plaintiff has permission to use the fixed-fee Internet with a monthly quota of 1gb. However, by the year 2008, 4.189 the month of December, $ 30 at invoice price 1324 mb mobile internet usage – uses 1.29 gb, Turkcell tl 2,56 1mb for every overdraft has said that in this case, the amount of quota 324 MB total extra = 2,56 x 324mb tl = TL 829.44 can demand, however, that the quota invoice only for mobile use 2.893 turkceli in detail in the bill,56 TL demanded so, in the meantime, 2.064,it has been found that there is no difference is 12 TL. In the invoice, 18% VAT and 25% communication tax were added to this price. When the difference (2,064.12 TL) was added to the cost of these amounts, it was determined that 18% kd = 371.54 TL, 25% communication tax = 516.03 TL Total = 2,951.69 TL Türkcell deducted the excess invoice price.” the opinion was expressed as follows.
It is fixed that the defendant has a 1 GB fixed-fee Internet usage package; upon the defendant’s exceeding the right to use 1 GB, the defendant company charges the bill for December 2008 for use exceeding the quota without any warning about exceeding the quota by charging it at the penalty tariff and sending it to the company in December 2008.
If the dispute quota is exceeded, the defendant company is obliged to provide information to the customer, if this obligation is not respected, it is related to determining the amount for which the consumer should be held responsible. Prepared by the Information Technology and Communication Authority;
6. The Regulation on Consumer Rights in the Electronic Communications Sector.article “(1) Operators are obliged to provide all consumers with the following minimum information regarding access to and use of electronic communication services they offer, without request, and to ensure that this information is easily accessible.
a) Name, title and address of the operator,
b) Regarding the service to be offered; definition and scope of service, the general terms and conditions applicable to use of the service regarding service access and service tariffs and, if applicable, the subscription packages, tariffs are taxes that are included with these types of taxes, tariffs tariffs reflected in calculating the rate of the formation of consumer perceptions towards the value of including all taxes, tariffs, if only for the purpose of granting compensation to the terms of the repayment are making by operators and subscribers, if any, offered Maintenance/Repair Services, the types of standard contract terms which includes the minimum contract period,
c) contains the legal expression ”Mechanisms for resolving consumer complaints”.
Paragraph 12/3 of the same regulation is ;
“…(3) In order to protect the consumer interest;
a) determination that the level of habitual use of the Service is too high,
b) In cases where there is a justified suspicion of the existence of illegal or fraudulent activity, the provision of the service may be restricted or stopped by providing information to the subscriber.”
It has brought its legal regulation .
In this regard, In accordance with Articles 6/1-b and 12/3 of the Consumer Rights Regulation on Electronic Communication Extractor, the defendant Turkcell Communication Services A.S has an obligation to inform the consumer in case of quota exceeding. However, the consumer has not acted in accordance with this obligation .
In this respect, the Additional reporting of the surveyor to re-file with the depositary for the arrangement; 1 GB of usage per month for the plaintiff 39 TL +VAT paid is taken into account; for each MB quota overruns in calculating this ratio is within; out of quota, while issuing an invoice will be found within this ratio is calculated on the basis that in this direction a package that uses the consumer’s own without proportioning of each 2,56 MB out of the facility in accordance with the terms of the expert report that calculates over TL-miss, whether it has required to break it.
CONCLUSION: Without hitting the decision in writing, without taking into account the principles described above, the appeals against the appeal are in place for these reasons, and the decision is made with the acceptance of HUMK’s was unanimously decided on 22.10.2015 that the appeal fee received in advance should be violated in accordance with the article and returned to the appellant upon request.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir