COURT ORDERS REFUND OF DEPOSITS WITHHELD BY A CAR COMPANY
In the case handled by our firm before the Ankara 1st Consumer Court, file no. 2024/… E. and decision no. 2024/….. K., brought by a consumer against T... Motorları Satış ve Hizmetleri Ltd. Şti., the court ordered the refund of a deposit of 50,000 TL. The court held that a contract term stating that the pre-order fee would not be refunded if the consumer exercised the right of withdrawal and cancelled the order constituted an 'unfair term'.
THE DECISION AS A PRECEDENT
This decision is a precedent that protects consumer rights, particularly in online car sales. The court emphasised that contract terms which the consumer did not expressly negotiate and which were drafted unilaterally in the seller's favour are invalid. Within the framework of Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection and the related regulations, it was established that contract terms creating an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer are null and void.
In this respect, the decision sets a precedent in consumer law and will serve as guidance for consumers facing similar situations. It shows in particular that companies in the automotive sector that take advance payments or deposits should review their contracts so that they operate in the consumer's favour. An excerpt from the decision is given below.
Precedent Decision from the Consumer Court: Deposit Not Refunded by T….. Recovered
Decision of the Ankara 1st Consumer Court, file no. 2024/…. E. and decision no. 2024/…. K.:
‘’When the entire file is assessed as a whole; it is understood that an Order Fee of 50,000.00 TL was paid by the defendant to the claimant company under the order created for a T…. make and model vehicle with reservation number RN121518233, that the defendant subsequently cancelled the order, that following the cancellation an application was made to the District Consumer Arbitration Committee requesting the refund of the Order Fee paid, that by decision dated 17/09/2024 and numbered 155420240001973 the Çankaya District Consumer Arbitration Committee rejected the claimant's request, and that the claimant objected to the decision within the time limit and filed this lawsuit; as regulated in Article 5 of the Regulation on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, 'For a term in a contract concluded with a consumer to be accepted as an unfair term, the following elements must be present together: a) it was included in the contract without being negotiated with the consumer, b) it causes an imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising from the contract to the detriment of the consumer, contrary to the rule of good faith.
(2) Where a contract term has been drafted in advance and is included in a standard contract, so that the consumer could not influence its content, that contract term shall be deemed not to have been negotiated with the consumer. If the party drafting the contract claims that a standard term was individually negotiated, it bears the burden of proving this.
(3) If an assessment of the contract as a whole leads to the conclusion that it is a standard contract, the fact that certain elements of a term or an individual provision in this contract have been negotiated does not prevent the provisions of this Regulation from applying to the rest of the contract.
(4) The terms listed in the annex to this Regulation are accepted as unfair terms. The terms in this list are not exhaustive but illustrative. 'Within the scope of the assessment of unfair terms and their effect on the contract, Article 7 of the regulation states: 'Unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers are absolutely null and void. However, the provisions of the contract other than the unfair terms remain valid. In this case, the party drafting the contract cannot claim that it would not have concluded the contract with the other provisions had it not been for the terms deemed absolutely null and void.'; in the present case, it was concluded that the provision stating that the pre-registration fee, which has the nature of earnest money, cannot be refunded is an unfair term and is null and void with respect to the consumer; since it was understood that the decision of the relevant arbitration committee was contrary to procedure and law, judgment has been rendered as follows, accepting the claim.’’
In accordance with the decision above, it has been established that the amounts collected by T….. as an order fee in the form of a deposit must be refunded. This decision was issued within a short time without holding a hearing, and it is a decision that brings relief to the consumer.
