20.07.2026 16:41
The consumer, who bought the brand new car they had dreamed of for years but suffered a great shock when the vehicle turned out to be painted and damaged, won their legal battle. In the case filed against the Peugeot dealer, which ignored the complaints, the Court of Cassation's 3rd Civil Chamber made a landmark decision, ruling that the vehicle be replaced with a new one (a like-for-like exchange).
Consumer H.K., who purchased a 2022 model vehicle as brand new, won their legal battle against the dealer and the automobile company after numerous defects and paintwork were discovered on the vehicle.
SHOCKING DEFECTS FOUND IN THE NEW VEHICLE
H.K. experienced a major shock when they had their brand new Peugeot 208 1.2 PureTech, purchased for 635,000 TL, inspected on the same day. The defects identified in the vehicle included paintwork on the right strip of the hood, imbalance in the micron values on the left strip of the hood, paint drips on the right sill, and touch-up paint on the front bumper. Additionally, the expert report revealed a dent on the right rear door, tampering with two screws on the right side of the hood, a missing foam pad on the left rear underside of the vehicle, and visible paint and pattern defects inside the hood.
COMPANY'S DEFENSE AND COURT PROCESS
After identifying the defects, H.K. repeatedly visited the dealer requesting a replacement vehicle but was consistently stalled. Finding no other solution, they applied to the Consumer Court. Company officials argued that the plaintiff had signed a delivery receipt stating the vehicle was inspected and received in complete and perfect condition. The company claimed that the paint micron values of the vehicle were within the ranges specified in the warranty certificate and argued that the request for a replacement with a defect-free equivalent was against equity, demanding the case be dismissed.
After reviewing the parties' statements and expert reports, the Consumer Court concluded that the brand new vehicle had been impacted and repainted before sale. The court noted that the issue was a fundamental defect arising from manufacturing, not user error, and stated that compensation for value loss would not provide the benefit expected by the consumer. Thus, it ruled that the vehicle should be replaced with a defect-free equivalent.
COURT OF CASSATION SETTLED THE MATTER: DEFECT DEEMED A "HIDDEN DEFECT"
Following the local court's decision, the Regional Court of Appeals rejected the defendant company's objection. The case was then brought to the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which issued a landmark decision affecting millions of consumers. The high court emphasized that the paint defects on the vehicle constituted a hidden defect and that, under the law, since the defect appeared within the first six months, the burden of proof fell on the seller.
The decision explicitly stated that with such damages not caused by user error, the expected benefit from a brand new vehicle could not be achieved. It ruled that the consumer's use of their statutory right to request a replacement with a defect-free equivalent was entirely consistent with equity and the balance of rights and interests between the parties. Consequently, all of the defendant company's appeals were rejected. Thus, the Consumer Court's ruling in favor of the consumer was definitively upheld by the Court of Cassation.