This was an appeal from the judgment of the 52nd Commercial Court (16 July 2013, 2012/381-2013/211).

The plaintiff insurer paid its insured under its insurance policy and sought to collect TRY 4,727 plus interest from the defendant, arguing that the goods belonging to the insured were loaded on the MV İbrahim Dede in Hamburg on 24 October 2011 and transported to Türkiye. In particular, the goods were damaged due to a hole in the ceiling of the container during its removal after it was transported to the address of the insured company by land transportation. This damage was documented and signed with a report, and the defendant was liable for the wetting damage to the goods under art 1178 of the Turkish Commercial Code TCC [which is based on art 3.2 of the Hague Rules, art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules, and art 4.2 of the Hamburg Rules].

The defendant argued that the allegedly damaged container was received and delivered to the consignee intact and that no evidence of damage to the goods of the insured or the container was detected during the inspection of the container. The defendant further argued that the plaintiff's insured arranged the land transportation from the port of discharge to the unloading address through its own carrier, that it was thus not liable, and that the lawsuit should be dismissed.

The Court of first instance observed that the goods belonging to the insured were carried by Container Transportation Maritime Inc on the MV İbrahim Dede from Hamburg under a bill of lading dated 27 October 2011. The Court further observed that the bill of lading was clean, and there was no record of any damage, although it was recorded in the expert report dated 14 December 2011 that the damage occurred due to water leakage into the container. The Court found that the photograph of the damage to the container was not in the file, that the container was discharged intact from the MV İbrahim Dede on 13 November 2011, and that no notice was sent to the carrier by the consignee. The Court held that the presumption that the damage was caused by a cause for which the defendant carrier was not responsible could not be rebutted. Therefore, the Court held the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

According to the information and documents in the case file and the fact that there is nothing contrary to the procedure and the law in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied on in the reasoning of the Court's decision, all the appellate objections of the plaintiff are inappropriate.