The SUV he bought as new turned out to be ‘defective’ after an accident, and the Court of Cassation ruled for a ‘replacement with equivalent’.

Hilal Yorulmaz and her husband Şahan Yorulmaz, who came to Trabzon with a brand new Opel SUV purchased from a dealer in Eskişehir, won a lawsuit that lasted 4 years after an accident caused by a brake failure and steering lock one month later. The couple, who kept the SUV with 1,600 kilometers on it in a parking lot for 4 years, had the consumer court rule that the fault in the braking system was not driver-related and decided that the ‘defective’ vehicle should be replaced with a ‘non-defective equivalent’.

Hilal and Şahan Yorulmaz, who work as healthcare personnel in a state hospital in Trabzon, purchased a brand new Opel Grandland model SUV on September 11, 2020, from an automotive dealer in Eskişehir. Excited about their purchase, the Yorulmaz couple drove the vehicle to Trabzon, but one month later, while driving downhill to work, they were shocked by what happened. According to allegations, the SUV driven by Hilal Yorulmaz crashed into a median after the brakes failed and the steering locked. When another vehicle coming from the left lane couldn’t stop and crashed into the SUV, Şahan Yorulmaz was injured. After the accident, the Yorulmaz couple, who spoke with dealer officials, received a response of ‘driver-related error’ after an inspection of the SUV. Following this, the couple took the matter to court. With the help of their lawyer Bünyamin Bayram, the couple filed a lawsuit against the dealer for ‘return of defective goods’, and the expert committee requested in the case seen at the Trabzon Consumer Court found vehicle owner Hilal Yorulmaz to be right. After the authorized dealer appealed the court’s decision that ruled to replace the ‘defective’ vehicle with a ‘non-defective equivalent’, the 4th Civil Chamber of the Trabzon Regional Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Consumer Court. The dealer officials, who objected to the decision, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court’s 3rd Civil Chamber upheld the decision against the dealer. The Supreme Court ruled that the selling dealer must either provide a brand new vehicle of the same model or refund the consumer the determined current amount.

“My husband wasn’t as lucky as me, he received treatment for 2 months”

Describing the incident, vehicle owner Hilal Yorulmaz stated that she survived the accident thanks to the airbag, saying, “On the day of the accident, my husband and I were going to work. We were driving down a hill. I was driving the vehicle. While going downhill, I noticed something strange in the braking mechanism. I felt a stiffness in the brake pedal. No matter how hard I pressed, the brakes didn’t hold. I told my husband that the brakes weren’t working. I reached for the parking brake, but that also became active. After that, we veered onto the main road. We thought maybe we could maneuver the steering wheel as a last resort. But the steering was locked too. The vehicle completely locked itself. We veered onto the main road that way. First, we hit the median, then a vehicle coming from the left lane couldn’t stop and hit us. I survived that accident thanks to the airbag. My husband wasn’t as lucky as me; he broke his hand in the accident. He received treatment for 2 months.”

“We had a 4-year legal process”

Stating that they bought the vehicle as brand new in 2020, Yorulmaz said, “We complained to the company saying how could a brand new vehicle make such a fault in just 1 month of usage. The company said the vehicle would be inspected. The next day they called us and said the accident was driver-related, trying to close the matter. Later, we coincidentally accessed the accident footage. We thought they would help us by looking at how the accident happened with these images, but we received the same response. I had to resort to legal channels. Thanks to our lawyer Mr. Bünyamin, we won our case. We had a 4-year legal process. We faced a lot of difficulties during this process. We have twin children. We faced difficulties because it coincided with the pandemic period. We went to work by taxi every day,” she stated.

“While the vehicle was lying here, we were also making payments”

Emphasizing that the credit they took when purchasing the SUV ended a month ago, Yorulmaz said, “We bought this vehicle with great enthusiasm, it disappointed us. I just finished the vehicle’s loan payment last month. During these 4 years, we had to pay for insurance and taxes. While the vehicle was lying here, we were also making payments. This process drained us both financially and spiritually. Winning the case was a joy for us. Will I approach the Opel brand again? Absolutely not. I tell everyone around me and in my family about this. It was a vehicle purchased with great difficulties and hopes, but unfortunately, it ended in a great disappointment.”

“We were without a vehicle for 4 years”

Şahan Yorulmaz stated that the 4 years they spent were painful, saying, “It was a disappointment for us that a vehicle we bought with love and desire had this accident just one month later. The company could not stand behind this. They caused us to suffer. We as a family experienced this hardship throughout these 4 years. In the end, we received the result we expected. We are very happy to have won the case. The court ruled for a replacement with an equivalent. That was our wish too. Hopefully, we will get our new vehicle. We were without a vehicle for 4 years.”

“One should not give up early”

Lawyer Bünyamin Bayram, who narrated the 4-year legal process, stated, “Four years ago, Ms. Hilal came to me and told me about this problem. Accordingly, we opened our case for equivalent replacement in court. The expert said in this matter, ‘yes, there is a production-related error.’ The first instance court ruled for an equivalent replacement. Then it was sent to the court of appeals. The appeals court also revealed our rightness. Our decision was upheld after the Supreme Court. In this respect, we are happy and delighted. The enforcement process is still ongoing. We will deliver the car. This damage will be eliminated. It was a tough 4-year process. It was due to the braking system. It was investigated whether it was production-related. In these evaluations, it was revealed to be production-related. I was very hopeful in this regard. The first instance court also made such a decision. One should not give up early. Such cases take a while; there is a process.