Esas No:2017\/1777<\/strong> \u0130NCELENEN<\/strong>KARARIN<\/strong> T.C.\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi16. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2017\/1777Karar No:2019\/337K. Tarihi: \u0130NCELENENKARARINMAHKEMES\u0130: \u0130STANBULANADOLU 6. ASL\u0130YET\u0130CARETMAHKEMES\u0130TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 13\/12\/2016<br>NUMARASI : 2015\/89 E. – 2016\/918 K.DAVANINKONUSU: Alacak (Sat\u0131m S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden Kaynaklanan)KARAR TAR\u0130H\u0130: 15\/02\/2019<br>\u0130stinaf incelemesi i\u00e7in dairemize g\u00f6nderilen dosyan\u0131n ilk incelemesi tamamlanm\u0131\u015f olmakla, HMK 353. ve 356. maddeleri gere\u011fince dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine g\u00f6re duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmeden dosya \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucu;G E R E \u011e \u0130 D \u00dc \u015e \u00dc N…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[66],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10965"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10965"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10965\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10966,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10965\/revisions\/10966"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2019\/337<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong>: \u0130STANBUL<\/strong>ANADOLU<\/strong> 6. ASL\u0130YE<\/strong>T\u0130CARET<\/strong>MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong>
TAR\u0130H\u0130<\/strong> : 13\/12\/2016<<\/strong>br>NUMARASI<\/strong> : 2015\/89 E. – 2016\/918 K.
DAVANIN<\/strong>KONUSU<\/strong>: Alacak (Sat\u0131m S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden Kaynaklanan)
KARAR TAR\u0130H\u0130<\/strong>: 15\/02\/2019<<\/strong>br>\u0130stinaf incelemesi i\u00e7in dairemize g\u00f6nderilen dosyan\u0131n ilk incelemesi tamamlanm\u0131\u015f olmakla, HMK<\/strong> 353. ve 356. maddeleri gere\u011fince dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine g\u00f6re duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmeden dosya \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucu;
G E R E \u011e \u0130 D \u00dc \u015e \u00dc N \u00dc L D \u00dc :
Davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan verilen dava dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131n\u0131n, daval\u0131 \u015firketten 8 adet DN<\/strong>25 ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 vorteks metre-buhar sayac\u0131 sat\u0131n al\u0131p bedelini \u00f6dedi\u011fini; davac\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 3.ki\u015fiye yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu at\u0131k su geri kazan\u0131na takt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; dava konusu \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin montaj\u0131ndan k\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sonra hata vermeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; durumun derhal daval\u0131 firmaya iletildi\u011fini; daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ilk olarak 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 mart ay\u0131nda sat\u0131n al\u0131nan buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu firmada servis hizmeti verildi\u011fini ve 5.000,00TL<\/strong> servis bedeli talep edildi\u011fini; davac\u0131n\u0131n bu servis bedelini saya\u00e7lar\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fteride bulunmas\u0131 ve ticari itibar\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rmemesi i\u00e7in daval\u0131 firmaya \u00f6dedi\u011fini; saya\u00e7lar\u0131n tekrar ar\u0131za verdi\u011fini; daval\u0131n\u0131n talebi do\u011frultusunda ar\u0131zal\u0131 saya\u00e7lar\u0131n 26\/09\/2012 <\/strong>tarihinde tamir amac\u0131yla daval\u0131 firmaya sevk edildi\u011fini; daval\u0131n\u0131n, olu\u015fan ar\u0131zan\u0131n garanti kapsam\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle tekrar 3.675 EURO<\/strong> bedel talep etti\u011fini; davac\u0131 talep edilen bu bedeli \u00f6demeyerek daval\u0131ya Be\u015fikta\u015f … Noterli\u011finden 28\/01\/2013 <\/strong>tarih ve … yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnameyi \u00e7ekerek s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi feshetti\u011fini ve saya\u00e7 bedeli olan 33.114,86 TL<\/strong> ve 5.000,00TL<\/strong> tamir bedelinin iadesini talep etti\u011fini; daval\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedelini ve tamir bedelini iade etmedi\u011fi gibi Pamukova Noterli\u011finden 05\/02\/2013 <\/strong>tarihli cevab\u0131 ihtarnamesi ile daval\u0131 teknik servis formunda yaz\u0131l\u0131 hususlar\u0131 beyan ederek yanl\u0131\u015f kurulum ve faza bas\u0131n\u00e7tan kaynakl\u0131 ar\u0131zalar\u0131n garanti kapsam\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etti\u011fini; dava konusu buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n halen daval\u0131 nezdinde bulundu\u011funu; daval\u0131 firman\u0131n ar\u0131zan\u0131n bas\u0131n\u00e7 miktar\u0131n\u0131n max. kapasitesinin \u00fcst\u00fcnde olmas\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ar\u0131zal\u0131 buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00f6nerisinde bulunan\u0131n daval\u0131 oldu\u011funu; ayr\u0131ca daval\u0131n\u0131n teknik servis formlar\u0131nda belirtilen bar\/bas\u0131n\u00e7 de\u011ferlerinin ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmaktan uzak oldu\u011funu; ayn\u0131 yere DN<\/strong> 25 \u00e7ap\u0131nda ba\u015fka firmadan temin edilerek tak\u0131lan saya\u00e7lar\u0131n sorunsuz \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; daval\u0131n\u0131n ay\u0131b\u0131n montajdan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011fu; davac\u0131n\u0131n yeni dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 firmadan 8 yeni buhar sayac\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; 33.114,86 TL<\/strong> \u00fczerine ek 11.802,28 TL<\/strong> fiyat fark\u0131 \u00f6dedi\u011fini; bu nedenlerle davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya sizle\u015fme ve tamir bedeli olarak 38.114,86 TL<\/strong> fiyat fark\u0131 olarak \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 11.802,28 TL<\/strong>‘nin (toplam\u0131 49.917,14 TL<\/strong>) s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin feshedildi\u011fi 28\/01\/2013 <\/strong>tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek olan ticari temerr\u00fct faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsili ile davac\u0131ya verilmesini; talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.Daval\u0131 vekilince verilen davaya cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131 \u015firketin 27\/09\/2011 tarihinde DN<\/strong> 40 \u00e7ap\u0131nda 8 adet vorteks ak\u0131\u015f \u00f6l\u00e7er’in sadece hat \u00e7ap\u0131 belirtilerek e-posta ile taraflar\u0131ndan fiyat teklifi istendi\u011fini; davac\u0131 \u015firketten proses ile ilgili detaylar hakk\u0131nda talep sonras\u0131nda ak\u0131\u015f miktar\u0131 ve di\u011fer proses bilgilerinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan iletilmesi \u00fczerine 550 kg\/h. olarak bildirilen ak\u0131\u015f miktar\u0131na g\u00f6re toplam 12.160 EURO<\/strong> bedelli teklifin 28\/09\/2011 tarihli e-posta ile davac\u0131ya g\u00f6nderildi\u011fini; daval\u0131n\u0131n teklifi \u00fczerine davac\u0131 fiyat revizyonu talep etti\u011fini; davac\u0131 \u015firket DN<\/strong> 25 olarak haz\u0131rlanan teklifin uygun bulundu\u011funa ili\u015fkin 25\/11\/2011 tarihinde sipari\u015f a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; daval\u0131 \u015firketin davac\u0131n\u0131n iddia etti\u011fi gibi \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin bulunaca\u011f\u0131 yerde bir ke\u015fif yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; daval\u0131n\u0131n teklifinin sadece \u00fcr\u00fcn fiyat\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7ermekte oldu\u011funu; montaj, devreye alma veya di\u011fer hi\u00e7bir servis hizmetini kapsamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; davac\u0131n\u0131n iddia etti\u011fi bir\u00e7ok hususun ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; tamamen yanl\u0131\u015f ve varsay\u0131mlar \u00fczerine kurulu oldu\u011funu; daval\u0131 \u015firketin davac\u0131ya satt\u0131\u011f\u0131 cihazlar\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; davaya cevap dilek\u00e7esinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131lar\u0131 belirtilen hususlarla \u00f6ncelikle davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine; davan\u0131n, bu noktadan reddedilmemesi durumunda mesnetsiz davan\u0131n reddine; karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.\u0130stanbul A**** *** Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesinin 13\/12\/2016 tarihli, 2015\/89 Esas 2016\/918 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; dava konusu buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n 25 mm \u00e7ap\u0131n\u0131n k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck olmas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 fazla bas\u0131nca ve h\u0131za maruz kalmadan 550 kg.\/saat buhar ge\u00e7irmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131; dava konusu buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131nda \u00e7\u0131kan ar\u0131zalar\u0131n, ay\u0131ptan olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, fazla bas\u0131nca ve buhar h\u0131z\u0131na maruz kalmas\u0131ndan kaynakl\u0131 oldu\u011funu; ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta proses hatas\u0131n\u0131n olmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fini; normal buhar bas\u0131nca, h\u0131z\u0131 ve ge\u00e7ecek debiye uygun \u00e7apta cihaz se\u00e7ilmemesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; sorunun, sistemin mevcut durumu itibariyle anl\u0131k buhar h\u0131z\u0131 ve bas\u0131n\u00e7 durumu ge\u00e7i\u015flerinin y\u00fcksek olmas\u0131 nedeniyle DN<\/strong>25 tipi Krohne marka wortex buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n teknik yap\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fi sistemin kapasitesinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 ve bu kapasitenin kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 sonucunda sistemin ar\u0131za vermesinden do\u011fdu\u011funu; teknik inceleme sonucunda dava konusu 8 adet buhar sayac\u0131n\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle, davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin … firmas\u0131na yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu at\u0131k \u0131s\u0131 geri kazan\u0131 ekonomizeri ile ilgili buhar t\u00fcketimlerini \u00f6l\u00e7mek i\u00e7in DN<\/strong>40 ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131 8 adet buhar sayac\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131 \u015firketten talep edildi\u011fini ancak daval\u0131 \u015firket saya\u00e7lar\u0131n tak\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 makine \u00fczerinde gelip ke\u015fif yaparak DN<\/strong> 25 ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkete uygun oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yledi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin de bu do\u011frultuda \u00fcr\u00fcnleri sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bedelini \u00f6dedi\u011fini, sat\u0131n al\u0131nan buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n … firmas\u0131na teslim edildi\u011fini, t\u00fcm talimatlara uygun olarak kurulmu\u015f ancak kurulumdan k\u0131sa bir s\u00fcre sorunda hata vermeye ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu hatalar ile alakal\u0131 olarak 2012 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n mart ay\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u015firketten servis talep edildi\u011fini, 20.03.2012 tarihinde daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan tamir amac\u0131yla makinelerin bulundu\u011fu fabrikaya gelindi\u011fini, garanti kapsam\u0131nda olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketten 5,000 TL<\/strong> servis bedeli istendi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin saya\u00e7lar\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterisinde bulunmas\u0131 nedeniyle ve ticari itibar\u0131na zarar gelmemesi i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu bedeli \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayn\u0131 y\u0131l\u0131n E**** *** saya\u00e7lar\u0131n tekrar ar\u0131zaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 firma sorunun garanti kapsam\u0131nda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek 3.675 Euro bedel istedi\u011fini, saya\u00e7lar\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmas\u0131 ve daval\u0131ya iade edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla … firmas\u0131 sistemin devam\u0131 i\u00e7in 44.917,14 TL<\/strong>‘ye 8 adet yeni buhar sayac\u0131 alarak bunu m\u00fcvekkilline faturaland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkil \u015firketin daval\u0131 firmaya \u00f6demi\u015f oldu\u011fu 33.114,86 TL<\/strong>‘ye ek olarak 11.802,28 TL<\/strong> fiyat fark\u0131 \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n ihtarlar\u0131na s\u00f6z konusu \u00fcr\u00fcnleri iade etmelerine ra\u011fmen sat\u0131\u015f bedelini geri \u00f6demediklerini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin buna ek olarak yeni saya\u00e7 almak zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve garanti kapsam\u0131nda iken 5,000 TL<\/strong> servis bedeli \u00f6demek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dosyada al\u0131nan iki raporun birbirine z\u0131t oldu\u011funu, 3. rapor al\u0131nmas\u0131 taleplerinin reddedildi\u011fini,
– Davaya, s\u00f6z konusu buhar bas\u0131nc\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7en \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin DN<\/strong> 40 ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131 m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin talep etmesine ra\u011fmen, DN<\/strong> 25 ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkete uygun oldu\u011funu iddia eden ve iddia ettiklerini de dava dosyas\u0131nda kabul eden taraf daval\u0131 \u015firket oldu\u011funu, asl\u0131nda DN<\/strong> 40 ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkil \u015firket i\u00e7in daha pahal\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, davac\u0131 m\u00fcvekkilin daha ucuz olan DN<\/strong> 25 ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcnlerini satmak istemesinin stok problemi gibi ticari kayg\u0131lar\u0131 ya\u015famas\u0131ndan kaynaklan\u0131yor olabilece\u011fini, iddialar\u0131n\u0131n gerek e-maillerle gerekse daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 …’\u0131n ifadeleriyle sabit oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 …’\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinden process datalar\u0131n\u0131 istediklerini, bu verilerin bilgisayar program\u0131na kaydettiklerini ve verilerle DN<\/strong> 25 mm’lik cihaz\u0131n kurulmas\u0131n\u0131n uygun oldu\u011funu tespit ettiklerini iddia etmi\u015fse de datalar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinden istenmedi\u011fini, hi\u00e7bir bilginin daval\u0131 tarafa iletilmedi\u011fini, dosyadaki mevcut process datalar\u0131n\u0131n, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan A4 ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131na yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015f \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131lardan ibaret oldu\u011funu, kendileri taraf\u0131ndan verilmedi\u011fini, bilirki\u015filerin varsay\u0131mlar \u00fczerinden hareket etti\u011fini ve hukuki g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirdi\u011fini beyanla daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n iddia etti\u011fi gibi ar\u0131zalar yanl\u0131\u015f monte edilmekten kaynaklanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekilinin istinafa cevap dilek\u00e7esinde, davac\u0131 \u015firketin 27\/09\/2011 tarihinde DN<\/strong> 40 \u00e7ap\u0131nda 8 adet Vorteks ak\u0131\u015f \u00f6l\u00e7erin sadece hat \u00e7ap\u0131 belirtilerek eposta ile fiyat teklifi istedi\u011fini, davac\u0131 \u015firketten process ile ilgili detaylar istendi\u011fini, davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a process bilgileri g\u00f6nderildi\u011finde bildirilen 550 kg \/ h olarak bildirilen ak\u0131\u015f miktar\u0131na g\u00f6re tekliflerinin 28\/09\/2011 tarihli eposta ile davac\u0131ya g\u00f6nderdiklerini, davac\u0131 firman\u0131n da ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn DN<\/strong> 25 olarak haz\u0131rlanan teklifi inceleyerek fiyat revizyonu istedi\u011fini, sadece fiyat indirimi yap\u0131larak 17\/10\/2011 tarihinde revize edilen teklifi davac\u0131 \u015firkete emaille ilettiklerini, teknik ve ticari y\u00f6nden uygun bularak 25\/11\/2011 tarihinde imzal\u0131 ve ka\u015feli sipari\u015f a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131m \u00f6ncesinde .. firmas\u0131nda ke\u015fif yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, iddialar\u0131n as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011funu, teklifin sadece \u00fcr\u00fcn fiyat\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fini, montaj devreye alma ve di\u011fer hi\u00e7bir servis hizmetini kapsamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, cihazlar\u0131n … firmas\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ilk servis hizmetiyle \u00f6\u011frendiklerini, tekrar ar\u0131zaland\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirildi\u011finde … firmas\u0131yla yap\u0131lan yaz\u0131\u015fmada bas\u0131nc\u0131n 920 kg\/h olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6\u011frendiklerini, yap\u0131lan ke\u015fifte de davac\u0131n\u0131n yeni \u00fcr\u00fcn temin etmedi\u011finin g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, al\u0131nan raporlarla \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini beyanla istinaf talebinin reddini istemi\u015ftir. \u0130lk derece mahkemesinin \u00c7orlu 3.Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi’ne talimat yazmak suretiyle ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, 2015\/37 Talimat say\u0131l\u0131 16\/11\/2015 tarihli rapora g\u00f6re; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sat\u0131n al\u0131nan [DN<\/strong>25 Kapasiteli ve halen daval\u0131 nezdinde bulunan] buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tespit edilemedi\u011fini; kurulum y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ar\u0131za yap\u0131p yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n; ancak yanl\u0131\u015f montaj iddialar\u0131 oldu\u011funu; yanl\u0131\u015f ba\u011flama sonucunda ar\u0131zadan ziyade yanl\u0131\u015f \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm yapaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131; daval\u0131n\u0131n se\u00e7mi\u015f oldu\u011fu 25 mm \u00e7ap\u0131n\u0131n k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck olmas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 fazla bas\u0131nca ve h\u0131za maruz kalmadan 550 kg.\/saat buhar ge\u00e7irmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131; \u00e7\u0131kan ar\u0131zalar\u0131n ay\u0131ptan olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fazla bas\u0131nca ve buhar h\u0131z\u0131na maruz kalmas\u0131ndan kaynakl\u0131 oldu\u011funu; ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta proses hatas\u0131n\u0131n olmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fini; normal buhar bas\u0131nca, h\u0131z\u0131 ve ge\u00e7ecek debiye uygun \u00e7apta cihaz se\u00e7ilmemesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; davac\u0131n\u0131n se\u00e7mi\u015f oldu\u011fu 40 mm cihaz, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan se\u00e7ilmedi\u011finden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130lk derece mahkemesinin dosya kapsam\u0131nda ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 01\/09\/2016 tarihli raporda; krohne wortex marka wafer DN<\/strong>25 tipi buhar sayac\u0131n\u0131n sistemin normal \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lar nitelikte oldu\u011funu; dosya i\u00e7erisinde bulunan 3 adet proses verilerinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verildi\u011finin kabul edilmesi halinde, 33.114,86 TL<\/strong> tutar\u0131ndaki 8 adet DN<\/strong>25 tipi buhar sayac\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 tarafa teslim edildi\u011fini; sistemin daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan devreye al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve montaj\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; sistemin mevcut durumu itibariyle anl\u0131k buhar h\u0131z\u0131 ve bas\u0131n\u00e7 durumu ge\u00e7i\u015flerinin y\u00fcksek olmas\u0131 nedeniyle DN<\/strong>25 tipi Krohne marka wortex buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n teknik yap\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fi sistemin kapasitesini kar\u015f\u0131layamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; kapasitenin kar\u015f\u0131lanmamas\u0131 ile sistemin ar\u0131za verdi\u011fini; kapasiteyi kar\u015f\u0131layamamas\u0131 ile sistemin ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; dava konusu DN<\/strong>25 tipi krohne marka wortex buhar saya\u00e7lar\u0131 i\u00e7in sistemde bulunan y\u00fcksek bas\u0131n\u00e7 ve buhar h\u0131z\u0131 proses verilerinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan eksik verilmesi sonucu ar\u0131zalar\u0131n meydana gelebilece\u011fini; teknik inceleme sonucunda dava konusu 8 adet buhar sayac\u0131n\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015flerdir. \u00c7orlu 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla dinlenen daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131, …’in ifadesinde Vorteks metre olarak bilinen buhar sayac\u0131n\u0131n ar\u0131zaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6ylenmesi \u00fczerine … fabrikas\u0131na gittiklerinde yanl\u0131\u015f ba\u011flant\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fcklerini, cihaz s\u0131cak oldu\u011fundan sonradan g\u00f6ndereceklerini s\u00f6ylediklerini, g\u00f6nderildi\u011finde \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm yapan sens\u00f6r\u00fcn k\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yanl\u0131\u015f ba\u011flant\u0131dan oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rd\u00fcklerini, 3-4 ay sonra ayn\u0131 sorun bildirildi\u011finde, yine fabrikaya gittiklerini, buhar t\u00fcketim de\u011ferinin 920 kg\/saat oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylediklerini, maksimum \u00e7al\u0131\u015fabilece\u011fi de\u011ferin 550 kg\/saat oldu\u011funu, ar\u0131zan\u0131n fazla kullan\u0131mdan kaynaklanabilece\u011fini tespit etti\u011fini s\u00f6ylemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 … ifadesinde davac\u0131 firman\u0131n kendilerinden 40 mm i\u00e7in fiyat vermelerini istedi\u011fini, kendilerinin davac\u0131dan process datalar\u0131n\u0131 istedi\u011fini, verileri bilgisayara kaydettiklerini, bu verilerle DN<\/strong> 25mm’lik cihaz korumas\u0131n\u0131n uygun oldu\u011funu, program tespit edince kendilerinin bu veriyi davac\u0131ya sunduklar\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131da onaylay\u0131nca DN<\/strong> 25’lik cihaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya Be\u015fikta\u015f … Noterli\u011finden 28\/01\/2013 <\/strong>tarih ve … yevmiye numaral\u0131 ihtarnameyi \u00e7ekerek s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi feshetti\u011fini ve saya\u00e7 bedeli olan 33.114,86 TL<\/strong> ve 5.000,00TL<\/strong> tamir bedelinin iadesini talep etti\u011finiDaval\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131ya Pamukova Noterli\u011finden 05\/02\/2013 <\/strong>tarih ve… yevmiye numaral\u0131 cevabi ihtarnameyi g\u00f6ndererek talebi kabul etmediklerini bildirdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.
GEREK\u00c7E:
Davac\u0131 vekilinin dava dilek\u00e7esinde, daval\u0131 taraftan al\u0131nan 8 adet DN<\/strong> 25 ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 Vorteks Metre Buhar Sayac\u0131n\u0131n ar\u0131zal\u0131 olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin feshedildi\u011fini ve saya\u00e7 bedeli olan 33.114,86 TL<\/strong> ile \u00f6denen 5.000,00 TL<\/strong> tamir bedelinin iadesini talep etti\u011fini beyan etti\u011fi, daval\u0131 vekilinin ise; cihazlar\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savundu\u011fu, ilk derece mahkemesinin cihazlar\u0131n ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, teknik yap\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fi sistemin kapasitesini kar\u015f\u0131lamamas\u0131 sonucunda sistemin ar\u0131za vermesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verdi\u011fi, karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf talebinde bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dava dilek\u00e7esi ekinde sunulan, teklif yaz\u0131s\u0131ndan davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n 27.09.2011 <\/strong>tarihli e-mail ile daval\u0131 taraftan Krohne Vorteks model DN<\/strong> 40 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde 8 adet buhar sayac\u0131na fiyat teklifi istedi\u011fi, daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131 \u015firkete g\u00f6nderilen 28 E**** *** tarihli fiyat teklifinde; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n ihtiyac\u0131 olan Vorteks metre ile ilgili \u00fcr\u00fcn ve detay\u0131nda \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn buhar bas\u0131nc\u0131n\u0131n 10 bar, debisinin 550 kg\/h oldu\u011fu belirtilerek DN<\/strong> 25 PN<\/strong> 40 sandwich ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 8 adedinin fiyat\u0131n\u0131n 12.160 Euro oldu\u011fu bildirilerek teklif sunulmu\u015ftur. Davac\u0131 vekilinin dilek\u00e7elerinde, daval\u0131n\u0131n fabrikaya gelerek inceleme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, daha sonra kendilerinin 40 DN<\/strong> ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn istemelerine ra\u011fmen 25 DN<\/strong> olarak teklif haz\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etmi\u015f ise de; daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n teklifinin, sadece \u00fcr\u00fcn fiyat\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, montaj, devreye alma veya di\u011fer hi\u00e7bir servis hizmetini kapsamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 taraftan proces datalar\u0131n\u0131 istediklerini, bu datalar\u0131 bilgisayara girdiklerinde davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtiyac\u0131n\u0131n DN<\/strong> 25 mm lik cihaz oldu\u011funu tespit ettiklerini ve bu \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn teklifini verdiklerini savundu\u011fu, daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 …’\u0131n da daval\u0131n\u0131n savunmas\u0131n\u0131 do\u011frulad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00fcr\u00fcnlerin davac\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fterisi olan … fabrikas\u0131na montajland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu fabrikada daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n inceleme yaparak teklif verdi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik davac\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n teklifinin sadece \u00fcr\u00fcn fiyat\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, servis hizmetini kapsamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan verilen teklifte a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn buhar debisinin 550 kg\/h oldu\u011funun beyan edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u0130lk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u00c7orlu 3.Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine yaz\u0131lan talimat ile fabrikada ke\u015fif yap\u0131larak rapor al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, ilk derece mahkemesinin dosya kapsam\u0131nda tekrar bilirki\u015fi raporu ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 ve servis raporu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn ar\u0131zal\u0131\/ay\u0131pl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn teknik yap\u0131s\u0131 gere\u011fi buhar debisinin y\u00fcksek olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, sistemin kapasitesini kar\u015f\u0131layamamas\u0131 sonucu ar\u0131za verdi\u011fi, ar\u0131zadan daval\u0131n\u0131n sorumlu tutulamayaca\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n sistemin kapasitesine uygun \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatiyle ay\u0131p iddias\u0131n\u0131n ve daval\u0131n\u0131n sorumlu oldu\u011fu ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fu kanaatiyle davac\u0131 vekilinin istinaf talebinin esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.
H \u00dc K \u00dc M : Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7e ile:
1-6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK<\/strong>.’n\u0131n 353\/1-b-1 maddesi gere\u011fince davac\u0131 vekilinin yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen istinaf isteminin ESASTAN<\/strong>REDD\u0130NE<\/strong>,
2-Al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken 44,40 TL<\/strong> harc\u0131n, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan 31,40 TL<\/strong> har\u00e7tan mahsubu ile bakiye 13,00 TL<\/strong> eksik harc\u0131n davac\u0131dan al\u0131narak hazineye irat kayd\u0131na,
3-\u0130stinaf incelemesi duru\u015fmas\u0131z yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan avukatl\u0131k \u00fccreti takdirine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na,
4-\u0130stinaf yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin davac\u0131 \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131na,
5-Artan gider avanslar\u0131n\u0131n karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ve talep halinde taraflara iadesine,
Dair, dosya \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucu 15\/02\/2019 <\/strong>tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle kesin olarak karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"