Precedent-setting court ruling: Cargo company fined 82 thousand liras for 'delivery without ID'

In Bolu, a cargo company was found "grossly negligent" after a shipment containing a mobile phone was lost due to a delivery made without checking identification.

Hüseyin T., a resident of the city, posted an advertisement on a second-hand product sales website in January to sell his mobile phone.

A person who identified himself as Oktay Ş. and claimed to live in Istanbul agreed with Hüseyin T. to purchase the phone for 55 thousand liras.

Hüseyin T. sent the phone to Istanbul via cargo on behalf of a friend, on the condition that the friend pick it up from the branch, and asked his friend to deliver the phone to the buyer and collect the money in person.

Hüseyin T., who sent the cargo tracking number to Oktay Ş. to prove that he had sent the phone, contacted his friend upon receiving the delivery notification.

After his friend stated that he had not received the shipment, the security camera footage at the cargo company was reviewed.

Upon determining that the shipment was delivered to the person who showed the tracking number without checking their ID, Hüseyin T. filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office for fraud against the person who introduced himself as Oktay Ş., through his lawyer Ahmet Fırat Burkucu.

Hüseyin T., who also demanded that the cargo company compensate for his loss, applied to the Bolu Provincial Consumer Arbitration Committee through his lawyer after receiving a negative response.

The Consumer Arbitration Committee, which examined the application, rejected it on the grounds that the shipment was declared as electronic goods, but it was not clear whether it contained a mobile phone.

Continuing his legal battle through his lawyer, Hüseyin T. filed a lawsuit against the cargo company at the Bolu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, acting as a "consumer court."

COURT FINDS CARGO COMPANY 'GROSSLY NEGLIGENT'

After examining the evidence and hearing witnesses, the Bolu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance concluded that the cargo company was "grossly negligent."

The court ruled that the cargo company must pay 82 thousand liras, including the current market value of the smartphone, legal interest accrued since January 23, the date of the application to the Consumer Arbitration Committee, and court costs.

The cargo company made the payment to Hüseyin T. in accordance with the court ruling.

"THE RULING IS A PRECEDENT FOR MANY VICTIMIZED CONSUMERS"

Lawyer Ahmet Fırat Burkucu stated that although cargo companies are required to ask for identification from the recipient when making a delivery according to the Road Transport Regulation, in practice, they deliver cargo using only the tracking number without checking IDs.

Stating that this situation can create grievances for consumers, Burkucu said, "With the decision it rendered, the Bolu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance evaluated the service provided by the defendant cargo company as defective within the scope of the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502 and ruled for the compensation of the client's loss. Since the decision in question is in the nature of an objection to the Arbitration Committee's decision, it is a final ruling. It also serves as a precedent for many victimized consumers."

REASONED DECISION

In the reasoned decision of the Bolu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, it was stated that according to the Law on the Protection of Consumers, the carrier is responsible for damages arising from damage to the goods inside the shipment and delays in delivery from the moment the shipment is received until it is delivered, and that this responsibility ends the moment the shipment is delivered.

The decision, which stated that although the cargo company had an obligation to "ask for identification" while delivering the shipment to the recipient, it was understood that the shipment was given to a third party other than the real recipient without doing so, noted the following:

"It is understood that the third party could not be reached again, that a complaint was filed with the prosecutor's office by the plaintiff regarding this matter, and that the investigation is ongoing. It has been seen that there is no doubt that the plaintiff suffered a grievance as he could not reach the phone that was the subject of the cargo shipment, which had been proven beyond any doubt with all the evidence described, and could not receive the amount subject to the sale price of this phone after the incident.

As a principle of transport law, it is possible for the cargo company to be discharged from its debt by delivering the shipment sent by the plaintiff to its real recipient in full, exactly as it was received, without causing any damage or loss, but it has been concluded that the defendant did not act in accordance with this obligation and that this behavior caused damage to the consumer."

The decision stated that no fault of the sender could be demonstrated in the occurrence of the incident, and therefore the defendant was obliged to compensate for the plaintiff's loss, adding, "It has been concluded that the transport company caused the loss of the cargo as a result of reckless behavior in the concrete case subject to the lawsuit and is therefore 'grossly negligent'."