The lost document cost dearly – 12 DECEMBER 2011
28 December 2017
Erzincanspor ‘accidental’ execution of 1.4 Million Turk Liras – 01 FEBRUARY 2011
2 January 2018

The train was broken, the TCDD was sentenced for indemnity.

Erendiz Önal, a lawyer from Ankara, filed a lawsuit against the TCDD for being trapped in a train for 11 hours and sentenced the institution to 2250 YTL for “spiritual” compensation.

Attorney Erendiz Önal boarded the Anatolian Express, which departed from Ankara on December 26, 2002, to go to Istanbul. However, the train often failed and made a delay while going to Istanbul. Since the machines did not work, the radiators did not turn on and the passengers waited for hours in minus 15 degrees. Some passengers returned to Ankara by bus from Eskişehir where they could arrive after 11 hours. The train was able to reach Istanbul after 16 hours.

Önal stated that he was a victim and that his job was not successful and he filed a lawsuit against TCDD for material and moral damages. The Ankara 17th Court of First Instance rejected the claim of compensation for moral damages in the amount that the plaintiff could only recover the ticket price. Onal, appealed the decision. The 11th Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the decision by stating that the plaintiff was a victim and that compensation should be awarded.

The supreme court stated that, “In spite of the limitless possibilities of science and technology, the defendant enterprise shows that the operator is severely flawed, many of whom are outdated, servicing their life-filling machines”.Ankara 17th Civil Court obeying the decision of the Supreme Court, sentenced the TCDD to pay compensation of 2 thousand 250 YTL together with legal interest.

A decision that gives the citizen a foreground

Attorney Erendiz Önal argued that the TCDD carried “passengers with delay since the time of Sultan Addülhamit” and said: “The words tardiness and TCDD have become words that remind each other. After this decision there has been radical changes in the approach to the citizens of the judiciary. In the face of the victimization of the citizens by the public enterprises, the protective approach of the public institution is left on the edge and the citizen are at the foreground in this case. After this, both public and private institutions and companies that serve the citizen will have to accept that victimizing the citizen has a cost to pay.