SUPREME COURT RULES 'HIDDEN DEFECT' FOR BRAND NEW CITROEN
SUPREME COURT RULES 'HIDDEN DEFECT' FOR BRAND NEW CITROEN
This week, for my valued readers, I will try to explain, with examples, the landmark decision issued by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court, which has become one of the most curious and precedent-setting cases in consumer law.
A new one has been added to the cases regarding family law that we have encountered very frequently lately. The Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers signed off on a decision that closely concerns millions of car owners. The High Court ruled that the puncturing of an engine block due to piston knocking in a Citroen brand car constitutes a hidden defect.
The plaintiff bought a brand-new car in Bursa in 2009. The car, which had been used without any problems for three years, suddenly stopped while driving in 2012. After the vehicle could not be restarted and was towed to a service center, the service inspection determined that the engine block had been punctured in two places due to piston knocking.
The service completed the repairs and reported that 60 percent of the damage cost would be covered by the defendant. The plaintiff, wanting to recover the 9,737 TL he had to pay to get the vehicle out of the service center, filed a lawsuit at the Bursa 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance.
He claimed that he had requested the refund of the paid amount through a notary warning sent to the defendant, but that no response had been given by the defendant, and he demanded the collection of the money he was forced to pay due to the repair cost from the defendant, together with the commercial advance interest to accrue from the date of payment.
'WARRANTY PERIOD EXPIRED'
The defendant dealer, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff had lost his rights arising from the warranty against defects by not notifying the defect in a timely manner.
The court pointed out that upon examination of the warranty certificate, the warranty period was two years, it was stated that the warranty was valid even for second-hand sales, the vehicle's warranty period expired on 15.06.2011, and although the six-month statute of limitations had expired, it was accepted that the repair of the breakdown was made within the scope of the warranty, so a statute of limitations defense could not be raised.
It was also reminded that the claim that the defect notification was not made could not be asserted, that since the defect occurred inside the engine and three years after delivery, it was not possible to detect the defect with ordinary control, and that since the plaintiff had applied to the vehicle's service center, the notification was made as soon as the defect appeared.
On the grounds that it was understood that the vehicle's engine was replaced within the scope of the warranty and customer satisfaction, and that it was not written in the document that 60 percent of the engine repair cost was replaced, the court decided to accept the case and collect the money from the defendant. The 19th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision. The Bursa 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance resisted its initial decision. As the defendant company appealed the decision, the file was sent to the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers.
'HIDDEN DEFECT' RULING
"In the concrete dispute, the payment date made by the plaintiff to the defendant is 25.05.2012, and the lawsuit was filed on 22.02.2013. Although the six-month statute of limitations for the lawsuit has expired in accordance with Article 25 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) No. 6762, it is established by the expert report obtained that the engine failure in the vehicle was production-related; in this case, it must be accepted that the defendant was grossly negligent due to the hidden defect that emerged and that the defect was hidden from the plaintiff through fraud. In the event that the defendant is grossly negligent due to a hidden defect in the vehicle, if the defect is hidden from the consumer through gross negligence or fraud, it is not possible to benefit from the statute of limitations, and the defendant's statute of limitations defense is not valid. Thus, the resistance decision given by the court is appropriate with these different justifications and reasons explained."
It has been reported that the case number of the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision was registered as 2021/1419 at the Bursa 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance.