18.10.2026 11:32
Kevser Kandemir, who lost her home in Bursa in 2022 due to a fire that broke out from the dishwasher in the kitchen on the night she was sleeping with her children, sued the manufacturing company. In the case, where the expert determined a hidden defect in the machine, Bursa 4th Consumer Court sentenced the company to pay a total of 135,418 lira in compensation, consisting of 85,418 lira in material damages and 50,000 lira in moral damages. The company appealed the decision.
It was determined that the fire in the kitchen of the home of Kevser Kandemir, who lives in BURSA, in 2022 originated from the dishwasher. Kandemir filed a lawsuit against the company that manufactured the dishwasher. After the trial at the Bursa 4th Consumer Court, the judge, taking into account the expert report, ruled that the white goods company, which he found defective, pay a total of 135 thousand 418 lira 50 kuruş in compensation.
In 2022, while Kevser Kandemir, who lives in the Emek Fatih Sultan Mehmet Neighborhood of the Osmangazi district, was sleeping with her children at night, a fire broke out in the kitchen of her home. Firefighters dispatched to the address upon notification extinguished the flames. In the preliminary examinations, it was determined that the fire was caused by the dishwasher in the kitchen. The expert report also stated that "the fire occurred as a result of an electrical arc at the plug connection point where the dishwasher was plugged into the outlet." Kandemir filed a lawsuit against the company that manufactured the dishwasher. After the trial at the Bursa 4th Consumer Court, the judge, taking into account the expert report, ruled that the white goods company, which he found defective, pay a total of 135 thousand 418 lira 50 kuruş in compensation, consisting of 85 thousand 418 lira 50 kuruş in material damages and 50 thousand lira in moral damages.
SHE HAD LOST HER HUSBAND SHORTLY BEFORE THE FIRE
Kevser Kandemir's lawyer, Selin Aydeniz, stated that her client, who had lost her husband shortly before the fire, was going through difficult days, and recounted the following:
"In 2022, our client purchased a white goods appliance from a white goods company for her home. However, one night while she was sleeping with her children, this appliance caught fire due to a latent defect, and the fire spread to other areas of the home, causing very serious hardship for our client and her children. Our client is a mother living with her children who, in fact, had lost her husband in a terrible work accident very shortly before the date of the incident. In the period after this incident, she was inevitably deprived of her home, and there is a very serious psychological trauma experienced by both her children and herself, which she is trying to cope with. The hardship she has experienced is truly very serious."
THE EXPERT CONFIRMED THE LATENT DEFECT
Also providing information about the legal process, lawyer Aydeniz said, "After our client reported the matter, we immediately filed a lawsuit for the determination of evidence. After it concluded in our favor, within the scope of the expert reports obtained, it was confirmed that there was a 'latent defect.' We initiated the litigation process and brought the matter to the judiciary with our claims for material and moral damages. Here, too, the court of first instance ruled in our favor. The case concluded in our favor at the court of first instance," she said.
THE CASE IS IN APPEAL; THE DECISION HAS PRECEDENT VALUE
Stating that the company carried the case to appeal, Aydeniz said, "It is currently at the appeal stage; it was taken to appeal by the opposing party. The trial is still ongoing. This court decision is very important for us, because we can actually say it is a precedent decision for consumers. Thanks to this case, consumers see that when they purchase a white goods appliance, their rights do not actually end with the purchase transaction. After the purchase, in situations such as 'latent defects' they encounter, they can still claim their rights against the company they purchased from, arising from the company's liability. If we experience hardship due to any technological product we have purchased, such as a white goods appliance or a television, as in this case, whether it is a fire or another hardship, in such a situation we can always seek our rights against the company from which we purchased the product. At this point, this case also has a precedent value for us," she stated.