THE LOCAL COURT WHERE THE REGIONAL DIRECTORATE IS ALSO AUTHORIZED IN THE CASE LAUNCHED AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY RESULTING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

General Assembly of Law

Principal Number: 2017/1087

Decision Number: 2020/125

“Justice Text”
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance

1. At the end of the trial due to the “compensation” lawsuit between the parties, the decision regarding the rejection of the lawsuit petition given by the Bursa 1st Civil Court of First Instance in terms of jurisdiction was overturned by the 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upon appeal by the plaintiff’s attorney. .
2. The decision to resist was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
   After the documents in the file were examined by the General Assembly of the 3rd Law, the necessity was discussed.

I. TRIAL PROCESS
Plaintiff’s Claim:

4. In the petition of the plaintiff’s attorney dated 08.05.2012; In the unilateral traffic accident caused by the vehicle of which the defendants are the operator, driver and traffic insurer, the plaintiff claimed that the warning and warning lamps and the fan belonging to the Institution were damaged and demanded a decision to collect 171,765.62 TL from the defendants.
   Respondent Response:
   5.1. Defendant Neova Sigorta A.Ş. In his reply petition dated 29.05.2012, his deputy; The place of accident is Sakarya, the place where the client company’s headquarters is located is Kadıköy. He requested that he should show the competent court, therefore, that the objections of jurisdiction be accepted and the file be sent to the competent Kadıköy courts.
   5.2. In the reply petition dated 02.07.2012, the defendant … attorney; Since the case was not filed in the court in the jurisdiction where the tortious act took place and in the court of the place where the client’s residence is located, he requested the dismissal of the case with the acceptance of the authorization objection.
   5.3. Defendant … In his reply petition dated 08.06.2012; stated that there was no fault in the occurrence of the accident and defended the rejection of the case.
   First Instance Court Decision:
5. With the decision of Bursa 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 30.01.2013 and numbered 2012/313 E., 2013/43 K.; Due to the jurisdiction of the court, on the grounds that the accident is within the jurisdiction of Bilecik, the insurance company does not have a head office or branch in Bursa, the defendant … and …’s domicile is Rize, and therefore the competent court is Rize. decided.
   Special Chamber Ruling Decision:
6. The plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal against the above-mentioned decision of the Bursa 1st Civil Court of First Instance.
7. With the decision of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 06.03.2014 and numbered 2013/11017 E., 2014/3155 K.;
   “…The attorney of the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff suffered damage in the accident caused by the vehicle of which he was the operator, driver and traffic insurer of the defendants, and demanded and sued that 171,765.62 TL be collected from the defendants.
   The attorney of the defendant insurance company and the attorney of the defendant … filed an objection to authority.
   The defendant … his attorney defended the dismissal of the case.
   The court decided that the accident was within the jurisdiction of Bilecik, the insurance company did not have a head office or branch in Bursa, the defendant … and …’s domicile was Rize, and therefore the competent court was Rize. has been done.
   The case is related to the claim for financial compensation arising from a traffic accident.
   According to Article 110 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 and Article C.7 of the ZMSS General Conditions, lawsuits related to legal liability due to motor vehicle accidents can be filed in one of the courts of the place where the head office or branch of the insurer or the agency that made the insurance contract is located, as well as in the court of the place where the accident occurred. can be opened. Considering that the plaintiff’s attorney filed the case in Bursa, where the Regional Directorate, which is the more authorized body of the insurer than an agency, is located, the rejection of the authorization objection and the fact that the matter should be entered into the merits of the matter, was not considered right to be decided in writing…” and the decision was overturned by a majority of votes.
   Decision to Resist:
8. With the decision of Bursa 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 02.12.2014 and numbered 2014/543E., 2014/558 K.; The place where the tortious act took place is not Bursa, moreover, in accordance with the general jurisdiction rule, a decision of non-authorization has been given on the grounds that the residence address of the defendants is Rize, the issue of jurisdiction can be observed ex officio by the court at every stage of the case, or it can be evaluated if the parties object to authority. In accordance with the provision of ‘it is the court of the place of residence on the date of its opening’, the defendant …’s authority objection is evaluated and the administration is authorized to represent in all provincial centers of our country.

The court of the place where that branch is located is authorized, based on the provision, it was decided to resist on the grounds that this situation would cause abuse of the right and that the abuse of the right should not be supported or protected by laws, and that the defendants filed an objection to authority in accordance with the procedural law, public order and procedural economy.
Appeal of the Decision to Resist:

10. The decision of resistance was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit.

II. DISPUTE

11. Dispute brought before the General Assembly of Law through resistance; It is gathered at the point of whether the court authorized to hear the case is Bursa courts or Rize courts.

III. REASON

12. In Article 110 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, which regulates the competent and authorized court, it is regulated that lawsuits related to legal liability due to motor vehicle accidents can be filed in one of the courts of the place where the head office or branch of the insurer or the agency that made the insurance contract is located, as well as in the court of the place where the accident occurred. .
13. Authorized courts have also been determined in Article C.7 of the General Conditions of Highways Motor Vehicles Compulsory Liability Insurance (Traffic Insurance), and the rule of authority in the Law has been exactly repeated.
14. Article 10 of the Regulation on the Establishment and Working Principles of Insurance Companies and Reinsurance Companies states that it is free for companies to organize within the country by opening regional directorates and branches, or to open branches or representative offices abroad, without prejudice to the provisions of other relevant legislation. It has been regulated that the company must notify the Undersecretariat within one month following the commencement of the activity and the termination of the activity. Considering this existing regulation, the regional directorate was allowed to be structured in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on the Establishment and Working Principles of Insurance Companies and Reinsurance Companies, and it was accepted that a structuring called a regional directorate could be established between the general directorate and branches and agencies.
15. The same principles have been adopted in the decision of the General Assembly of Law No. 2017/17-1110 E., 2017/860 K. dated 24.06.2017.
16. In the concrete case; The accident occurred on the Sakarya-Pamukova road (Bilecik jurisdiction) on 17.01.2011. The residence of the defendants … and … is Rize, and the head office address of the defendant company is Istanbul. The plaintiff’s attorney filed the case in Bursa, where the regional directorate is located. As the courts of the head office or the place where the branch or the agency making the insurance contract are located are deemed competent pursuant to the Law (p. 2918 KTK), there is a regional directorate, which is the supreme authority inspecting the agency and the branch, works in line with the orders and instructions of the headquarters and has more authority than the branch. It is necessary to accept that the ground court is also competent. Considering that the plaintiff’s attorney filed the case in Bursa, where the Regional Directorate, which is the more authorized body of the insurer than an agency, is located, the court should reject the objection of authorization and enter the merits of the case and make a decision according to the result.
17. In that case, it is necessary to comply with the decision of the Special Chamber to overturn the decision of the General Assembly of Law, but it is against the procedure and the law to resist the previous decision.
18. Therefore, the decision to resist must be overturned.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained;
Due to the acceptance of the plaintiff’s attorney’s objections and the decision to resist, due to the reasons given in the decision of the Special Chamber to overturn, pursuant to Article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. – Pursuant to paragraph 3, it was decided unanimously on 11.02.2020 that the way of rectification is closed.