Türkçe
العربية
HÜRRİYET – 27 January 2006
Lawyer from Ankara, Erendiz Önal, filed a lawsuit against TCDD for material and non-pecuniary damages after being stranded on the train he was on for 11 hours, and the institution was sentenced to 2250 YTL in “pecuniary” damages.
LAWYER Erendiz Önal boarded the Anadolu Express departing from Ankara on December 26, 2002, to go to his hearing in Istanbul. However, the train frequently broke down and was delayed until it reached Istanbul. Since the machines did not work, the heaters did not turn on and the passengers were kept waiting for hours at minus 15 degrees. Some passengers returned to Ankara by bus from Eskişehir, which they reached after 11 hours. The train reached Istanbul exactly 16 hours later.
Önal stated that he was a victim and that his work was disrupted and filed a lawsuit against TCDD for material and moral damages. Ankara 17th Civil Court of First Instance ruled that the plaintiff could only recover the ticket price for pecuniary damages and rejected his request for non-pecuniary damages. Önal appealed the decision. The 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the decision, stating that the plaintiff was aggrieved and compensation should be awarded.
In its reversal decision, the Supreme Court said, “Despite the unlimited possibilities of science and technology, the fact that the defendant enterprise provides service with machines, many of which are obsolete and have reached the end of their life, indicates that the enterprise is seriously flawed.” This time, Ankara 17th Civil Court of First Instance complied with the Supreme Court’s reversal decision and sentenced TCDD to pay 2 thousand 250 YTL in non-pecuniary damages along with legal interest.
A decision that puts citizens first
Lawyer Erendiz Önal argued that TCDD “has been carrying passengers with delays since the time of Sultan Addülhamit” and said: “The word delay and TCDD have become words that remind each other. After this decision, there has been a radical change in the judiciary’s view of the citizens. It protects the public institution against the victimization of citizens by public enterprises.” This approach has been put aside and it is a decision that puts citizens at the forefront regarding human rights. From now on, both public and private institutions and companies that serve citizens must take into account that there is a price for victimizing citizens. They will have “.to
