T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
19. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2014\/9981 E., 2014\/15997 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ticaret Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonunda ilamda yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131lardan ….’yi temsile yetkili Ba\u015far Dikici taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc.<\/p>\n
– K A R A R –<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin daval\u0131lardan ….’den ….ve 2010 model arac\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, di\u011fer daval\u0131n\u0131n ise bu arac\u0131n ithalat\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu, arac\u0131n sat\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131ndan sonra defalarca ayn\u0131 nedenle ar\u0131zaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ara\u00e7ta \u00fcretimden kaynaklanan ay\u0131p bulundu\u011funu belirterek, sat\u0131m s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin iptali ile ara\u00e7 bedelinin iadesine karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 …. vekili; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan s\u00fcresinde ay\u0131p ihbar\u0131 yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve dava zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin sona erdi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca dava konusu ara\u00e7ta meydana gelen ve ay\u0131p niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mayan ar\u0131zalar\u0131n da giderildi\u011fini belirterek, davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada toplanan delillere g\u00f6re; dava konusu ara\u00e7ta gizli ay\u0131p bulundu\u011fu ve s\u00f6zkonusu gizli ay\u0131b\u0131n yetkili servis\u00e7e dahi tespit edilemedi\u011fi, bu nedenle yetkili servisin arac\u0131 onaramad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak bilirki\u015fi raporunda belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere ara\u00e7taki gizli ay\u0131b\u0131n giderilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmas\u0131 ve a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 masraf gerektirmemesi nedeniyle s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden d\u00f6n\u00fclmesinin de hakl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’nun 227\/3 (818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK’nun 202\/2) maddesi gere\u011fince hakime tan\u0131nan yetkinin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 do\u011frultusunda; ay\u0131p nedeni ile bedelden indirim yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ve arac\u0131n onar\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n dosya kapsam\u0131na daha uygun olaca\u011f\u0131, nispi y\u00f6nteme g\u00f6re bilirki\u015fi ek raporunda yap\u0131lan hesaplamaya g\u00f6re sat\u0131\u015f bedelinden indirilmesi gereken miktar\u0131n 33.755,79-TL oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile ay\u0131ptan dolay\u0131 indirilmesi gereken 33.755,79-TL tazminat\u0131n dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek de\u011fi\u015fik oranlardaki avans faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsili ile davac\u0131ya verilmesine: ara\u00e7taki ay\u0131b\u0131n daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan onar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fck\u00fcm daval\u0131lardan ….’yi temsile yetkili ….. taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
\nDosyadaki yaz\u0131lara karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle gerektirici sebeplere, delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik bulunmamas\u0131na g\u00f6re, daval\u0131lardan ….’yi temsile yetkili ….yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen b\u00fct\u00fcn temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddiyle usul ve kanuna uygun bulunan h\u00fckm\u00fcn ONANMASINA, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 onama harc\u0131n\u0131n temyiz edenden al\u0131nmas\u0131na, 10.11.2014 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2020\/8432 E., 2021\/8824 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : ASL\u0130YE HUKUK (T\u00dcKET\u0130C\u0130) MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7erisindeki b\u00fct\u00fcn ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, Toyota … Bayii oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n kendisinden takas yolu ile s\u0131f\u0131r kilometre 2012 model Toyota Corolla arac\u0131 53.750,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n kendisine ait olan 2010 model Nissan Qashgai marka arac\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda takas olarak verdi\u011fini ve arac\u0131n g\u00fcncel bedelinin 46.750,00 TL olarak sat\u0131\u015ftan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, daval\u0131ya ait ara\u00e7ta hasar kayd\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu hususunda herhangi bir olumsuz bilgiye ula\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak arac\u0131n 2. el olarak sat\u0131\u015fa \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tramer kayd\u0131nda 45.000,00 TL civar\u0131nda hasar kayd\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu, bu sebeple zarara u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, \u015fimdilik 10.000,00 TL zarar\u0131n\u0131n ticari faizi ile daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131, 11 ay ge\u00e7tikten sonra davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n oto al\u0131m i\u015fleri yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Toyota servis ve bayisi oldu\u011funu ve trafik kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 kontrol etmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek, davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f; 13. Hukuk Dairesinin 2016\/13435 E. 2019\/4924 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile s\u00f6z konusu karar g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bozulmu\u015ftur. Bozma \u00fczerine Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, bu kez davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1-Dava, sat\u0131n al\u0131nan ay\u0131pl\u0131 ara\u00e7 nedeniyle u\u011fran\u0131lan zarar\u0131n tahsiline ili\u015fkindir. Mahkemece, ihbar s\u00fcrelerine uyulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, al\u0131c\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131lan\u0131 g\u00f6zden ge\u00e7irmeyi ihmal etti\u011fi, sat\u0131lan\u0131 bu \u015fekli ile kabul etmi\u015f say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n tacir olarak tramer kayd\u0131na bakmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ve bunu bilebilecek durumda oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek daval\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu ay\u0131ptan dolay\u0131 sorumlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Taraflar aras\u0131nda 09\/06\/2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda takas s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, takas edilen arac\u0131n 13\/01\/2012 tarihinde pert total i\u015flemine tabi tutuldu\u011fu, 29\/03\/2013 tarihinde de bu davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususlar\u0131nda ihtilaf yoktur.<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihi itibariyle y\u00fcr\u00fcl\u00fckte olan 4077 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcketicinin Korunmas\u0131 Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 4. maddesinde sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n ay\u0131ba kar\u015f\u0131 sorumlu tutulanlar\u0131n daha uzun bir garanti s\u00fcresi vermemesi daha uzun bir s\u00fcre sorumluluk \u00fcstlenmemeleri halinde ay\u0131pl\u0131 maldan do\u011fan davalar\u0131n ay\u0131p daha sonra ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f olsa bile mal\u0131n t\u00fcketiciye teslimi tarihinden itibaren 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na tabi oldu\u011fu, ancak, sat\u0131lan mal\u0131n ay\u0131b\u0131 t\u00fcketiciden sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r kusuru veya hile ile gizlenmi\u015fse 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinden yararlanamayaca\u011f\u0131, h\u00fckm\u00fc yer almaktad\u0131r. O halde, arac\u0131n pert total oldu\u011fu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, bu hususta sat\u0131c\u0131 daval\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r kusurlu oldu\u011funda \u015f\u00fcphe yoktur. Nitekim davac\u0131n\u0131n tramer kayd\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de yoktur.<\/p>\n
Ay\u0131p nedeni ile sat\u0131\u015f bedelinden indirilecek miktar\u0131n tespitinde, doktrinde, “mutlak metod”, “nispi metod” ve “tazminat metodu” ad\u0131yla bilinen de\u011fi\u015fik g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler mevcutsa da gerek Dairemiz gerekse Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6teden beri uygulanan “nispi metod” olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan hesaplama y\u00f6ntemi benimsenmektedir. Nisbi metoda g\u00f6re; sat\u0131\u015f tarihi itibariyle sat\u0131lan\u0131n, ay\u0131ps\u0131z ve ay\u0131pl\u0131 de\u011ferleri aras\u0131ndaki oran\u0131n, sat\u0131\u015f bedeline yans\u0131ma miktar\u0131 belirlenmektedir. Ba\u015fka bir ifade ile sat\u0131lan\u0131n, taraflar\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131klar\u0131 sat\u0131\u015f bedeli g\u00f6zetilmeksizin, sat\u0131\u015f tarihi itibariyle ger\u00e7ek ay\u0131ps\u0131z rayi\u00e7 de\u011feri ile ay\u0131pl\u0131 haldeki rayi\u00e7 de\u011feri ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 belirlenerek, bu iki de\u011ferin birbirine b\u00f6l\u00fcnmesi suretiyle elde edilecek oran, sat\u0131\u015f bedeline uygulanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u015eu halde Mahkemece, davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar (bedel indirimi) talebinin nispi metoda g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirilerek karar verilmesi gerekirken, bu husus g\u00f6zetilmeden yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2-Bozma nedenine g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n sair temyiz itiraz\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine \u015fimdilik gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da 1. bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle temyiz olunan h\u00fckm\u00fcn davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na BOZULMASINA, 2. bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle davac\u0131n\u0131n sair temyiz itiraz\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine \u015fimdilik yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’nun ge\u00e7ici madde 3 atf\u0131yla 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 HUMK’n\u0131n 440. maddesi gere\u011fince karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 15 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere, 22\/09\/2021 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 19. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 10.11.2014 tarihli, 2014\/9981 Esas 2014\/15997 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 3. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 22\/09\/2021 tarihli, 2020\/8432 Esas, 2021\/8824 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 19. Hukuk Dairesi 2014\/9981 E., 2014\/15997 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ticaret Mahkemesi Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonunda ilamda yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131lardan ….’yi temsile yetkili Ba\u015far Dikici taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc. – K A R A R – Davac\u0131 vekili; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin daval\u0131lardan ….’den ….ve 2010 model arac\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, di\u011fer daval\u0131n\u0131n ise bu arac\u0131n ithalat\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011funu, arac\u0131n sat\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131ndan sonra defalarca ayn\u0131 nedenle ar\u0131zaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ara\u00e7ta \u00fcretimden kaynaklanan ay\u0131p bulundu\u011funu belirterek, sat\u0131m s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin iptali ile ara\u00e7 bedelinin iadesine karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 …. vekili; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan s\u00fcresinde ay\u0131p ihbar\u0131 yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve dava zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin sona erdi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca dava konusu ara\u00e7ta meydana gelen ve ay\u0131p niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mayan ar\u0131zalar\u0131n da giderildi\u011fini belirterek, davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada toplanan delillere g\u00f6re; dava konusu ara\u00e7ta gizli ay\u0131p bulundu\u011fu ve s\u00f6zkonusu gizli ay\u0131b\u0131n yetkili servis\u00e7e dahi tespit edilemedi\u011fi, bu nedenle yetkili servisin arac\u0131 onaramad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak bilirki\u015fi raporunda belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere ara\u00e7taki gizli ay\u0131b\u0131n giderilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmas\u0131 ve a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 masraf gerektirmemesi nedeniyle s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden d\u00f6n\u00fclmesinin de hakl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’nun 227\/3 (818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK’nun 202\/2) maddesi gere\u011fince hakime tan\u0131nan yetkinin kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 do\u011frultusunda; ay\u0131p nedeni ile bedelden …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n