20.07.2026 11:31
The Court of Cassation's 3rd Civil Chamber issued a landmark decision regarding a zero-kilometer car with paint on some areas. The High Court ruled that instead of replacing the vehicle due to a hidden manufacturing defect, the consumer should be compensated for the depreciation in the second-hand market value.
A citizen living in Adana put up for sale the car he purchased as brand new from a dealer after some time.
When the citizen took the car for an expert inspection, he learned that the left door and center pillar of the vehicle had been repainted, and the left lower sill had local paintwork. Consequently, the consumer reported the situation to the dealer and demanded the replacement of the vehicle with a defect-free counterpart. However, upon rejection of the request, the matter was taken to court.
EXPERT REPORT: DEFECT ORIGINATED FROM PRODUCTION
In the expert report prepared within the scope of the case, it was determined that there was paint runoff in the specified areas of the car and that the paint thickness exceeded the reference value. The report stated that the defect in question originated from the production process and that the consumer had no fault.
LOCAL COURT ORDERED REPLACEMENT
The Adana 3rd Consumer Court ruled that the issue with the vehicle constituted a "hidden defect" and ordered the replacement of the brand new car with a defect-free counterpart. The court assessed that due to this situation, the consumer could not obtain the expected benefit from a new vehicle.
PRECEDENT DECISION FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, upon appellate review of the decision, found the replacement order issued by the local court disproportionate and overturned it. While the High Court acknowledged that the defect in the vehicle was a hidden defect originating from production, it noted that this defect did not adversely affect the vehicle's intended use, driving safety, or comfort.
In the decision, it was stated that the defect caused a decrease in the second-hand market value, and it was indicated that the consumer should be compensated for the loss of value instead of the replacement of the vehicle with a defect-free counterpart.