The dealer and the provider are responsible for all damages caused by accidentally placing gasoline in the vehicle instead of diesel fuel. Because in this case, which qualifies as a defective service, the fact that the service offered is defective does not eliminate this responsibility. You can look at the example Supreme Court decision.
3. Civil Department
Base Number: 2020/3188
Decision Number: 2020/4776
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT :CONSUMER COURT
At the end of the trial of the claim case between the parties, the provision given for partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case for reasons written in the decommissioning is not heard by the plaintiff’s lawyer, the defendant … Industry and trade inc. his lawyer had sent a summons paper to the interested parties after the hearing was appealed. No one came from the defendant and the plaintiff who appealed on a certain day. The other defendant … P. the acting lawyer … came and the hearing was started, and after the oral statements of the person present were heard, the decision was left for another day. This time, it was determined that the appeal was in due course, and the file was examined, and the need was discussed and considered.
DECISION
Plaintiff, defendants … oil industry and trade A.P.from the fuel station belonging to the … license plate number of the vehicle received fuel, but the pump officer evacuated gasoline instead of diesel fuel to the vehicle, thus the car malfunction occurred, the defendant … the defendant filed a lawsuit against the company, which was merged by the managers of the defendant company to repair the vehicle … automotive Industry and trade inc. here, only the fuel filter of the car was changed and the gasoline in the tank was cleaned, but on the following day the car again broke down, the defendants caused large-scale damage to the vehicle as a result of the defect, claiming that they also reserved their rights to excess in the main case; 15.000,00 TL for the cost of damaged parts, 600.00 TL for the repair and labor costs of damaged parts, 1000,00 TL for the depreciation of the vehicle, 150.00 TL as the tow expense, 3.540,00 TL for the car rental price, 2.800,00 TL for the expenses paid for the service to distribute and collect the vehicle and 477.00 TL for the detection costs and expenses,a total of 23.567, 00 TL demand
… without showing amount Otomotive Industry and trade inc. after stating that they increased the claims for repair and labor costs of damaged parts by us $ 600.00 with the cost of damaged parts requested as US $ 15,000, 00 with the request for reclamation dated 30.03.2016,with the acceptance of Reclamation demands by US $ 11,656. 00; in accordance with the other claims for receivables and the reclamation petition stated in the lawsuit petition,27,256.00 TL damaged parts, repair and labor costs of damaged parts were requested to be collected together with interest.
The defendants have asked for the dismissal of the case.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court in accordance with the violation notice, in the main case, the defendant … San. and tic. A.P. upon the adoption of the case against partial,as the cost of the damaged parts and labor 27.256,00 TL you get 15.600,00 TL of the case to date, 11.656,00 TL 30.03.2016 together with legal interest from the date to the breeding date and last name to be given to the plaintiff the defendant is taken from attractive expense, car rental, vehicle assembly and deployed with a total cost of 6.490,00 TL process, with legal interest from the date the defendant of the case to the San. and tic. A.P.’to be given to the plaintiff by taking it from, to be denied the request for excess, … office A.P. In the case of the defendant, the plaintiff and the defendants in the original case… Petroleum Industry and trade A.P. appealed by.
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, as well as the necessary reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, the lack of accuracy in the evaluation of the evidence, all of the defendant’s appeals, and the plaintiff’s other appeals that fall outside the scope of the following bent, must be rejected.
2-plaintiff, defendant … industry and trade A.P.he asked for compensation for damages incurred by employees of the fuel station owned by him by placing the wrong fuel in his vehicle. By the court, the main case is the defendant … industry and Commerce A.P. it was decided that the case was partially accepted, the other defendant … Office A.P. it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that there was no fault in the cause of the damage. First, it should be noted that in the concrete case, the defendants … oil industry and trade A.P.the other defendant of the fuel station operated by … Office A.P.there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the dealer is a dealer (Petrol Ofisi) and that the vehicle was decimated by placing the wrong fuel on the plaintiff’s vehicle by the dealer’s employee. The dispute is collected at the point of whether the provider has fiduciary responsibility for the service provided by the dealer.
In the third paragraph of Article 4/A of the law No. 4077 in force at the time of the damage;“the provider, dealer, agent and creditor in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 10 are mutually liable for any damages caused by the defective service and any damages caused by the defective service and the electoral rights of the consumer contained in this article. Not knowing that the service provided is defective does not eliminate this responsibility.”the arrangement is included.
3 of the aforementioned law entitled “definitions”. according to the article;
“In the implementation of this law,
d)service: any activity other than providing goods made for a fee or interest,
d) provider: refers to natural or legal persons who provide services to the consumer within the scope of their commercial or professional activities, including public legal entities.”there is a provision.
A concrete dispute the granting of the plaintiff’s defective goods is not in question, however; Article 4 of the aforementioned law/in accordance with the first paragraph of article;“…reported by the provider or the quality or nature of advertising and advertisements identified in the standards or technical regulations affecting the value or the quantity of it which is contrary to, or for the purpose of benefiting the consumer that reduces or eliminates the benefits expected from financial, legal, or economic deficiencies contains Services, a service is considered defective.”Accordingly; the defendant to the plaintiff’s vehicle … industry and Commerce A.P.in an incident that occurred by an employee in the form of gasoline replacing diesel fuel, … oil industry and trade A.P.in the absence of a dispute that the other defendant … office sells and serves as a dealer, there is a defective service in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4/A of the said law, since there is a service containing material deficiencies that eliminate the benefits expected by the consumer in terms of the purpose of Use identified in ads and ads reported by the provider.
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 4/A, the provider and dealer are mutually liable for the defective service and any damages caused by the defective service and for the electoral rights of the consumer contained in this article. However, not knowing that the service offered is defective does not eliminate this responsibility (H.G.K.19.09.2012 date 2012/13-153 B., 2012/598 D. numbered declaration). Ignoring this matter described by the court, the decision to dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant’s office did not have any defects in the cause of damage is against the procedure and law and requires a violation.
Conclusion: all of the defendant who appealed the decision for the reasons described in Paragraph (1) above, the rejection of other appeals that fall outside the scope of the second bent of the plaintiff, the violation of the provision appealed for the benefit of the plaintiff for the reasons described in Paragraph (2), The Return of the advance appeal fee to the appellants on request, 440 of Humk 1086 with a provisional Article 3 attribution of HMK 6100.in accordance with the article, a unanimous decision was made on 24/09/2020, with the path of Correction of the decision open within a 15-day period from the notification of the decision.
