T.C. SUPREME
17.law office
Main: 2017/751
Decision: 2018/1274
Date of Decision: 22.02.2018
LOSS OF VALUE DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT – DUE TO THE NEED TO DETERMINE THE LOSS OF VALUE OF THE VEHICLE ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FAIR VALUE OF THE DECOMMISSIONED SECOND-HAND MARKET BEFORE THE ACCIDENT AND THE FAIR VALUE AFTER THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND WAS REPAIRED
ABSTRACT: The case is related to the claim for loss of value caused by a traffic accident. By the court of the vehicle model, brand, features, damage, performing repairs, and the mileage, age in the history of the event, the prosecution’s allegations, the defense of the defendant and the vehicle prior to the crash undamaged and all of the file scope will be evaluated with second-hand and fixed with a fair market value when the accident occurs, the next the second-hand market value of the loss in value to the difference between the elimination of conflicts that may occur in the determination of the loss in terms of a detailed, reasoned and open to inspection after receiving a new report after evaluating all the evidence in the file, although a report suitable for audit and provision should be received and a decision should be made based on the result to be reached, it was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing.
(6100 pp. K. m. 266) (1136 P. K. m. 168)
At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; The file was examined and considered necessary upon appeal by the dectiff’s deputy within the period of the decision on the partial acceptance of the case for reasons written in the decision:
Decision: plaintiff attorney; in a traffic accident that occurred on 16/09/2013 clients with plates of value in the vehicle in the event that the loss occurs …’s %75 imperfect, the driver of the vehicle license plate … the other party’s work 25% was found to be defective, but it wasn’t a violation of the rules by the client, his client on the surplus by the finding of damage to the tool without prejudice to the rights, 500.00 with legal interest from the date of the event now for the TL process of the defendant requested that the collection be given to decide on.
The defendant …; defended the rejection of the case. According to the evidence collected by the court; the claim, the defense, and the expert report adopted; … the rejection of the case was decided by the defendant … to be given to the plaintiff by taking the legal interest of the damages of TL 2,520.00 from the defendant … from the date of 16/09/2013, together with the defendant …; the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
1- According to the articles in the file, the reasons for which the decision is based on, and the reasons required, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of other appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney that were outside the scope of the following paragraph and were not seen on the spot.
2- The case is related to the claim for loss of value caused by a traffic accident. In the expert report based on the judgment, the determination of the depreciation of the vehicle is based on the determination of the depreciation of our apartment, the vehicle was not damaged at the time of the accident 2.2. the hand has been repaired after the accident at market value.the difference between the market value of the hand is provided by decalculation without complying with the criterion. A provision cannot be established based on the report in which the depreciation is determined by the method specified in the expert report. In this case, the court of the vehicle model, brand, features, damage, performing repairs, and the mileage, age in the history of the event, the prosecution’s allegations, the defense of the defendant and the vehicle prior to the crash undamaged and all of the file scope will be evaluated with second-hand and fixed with a fair market value when the accident occurs, the next the second-hand market value of the loss in value to the difference between the elimination of conflicts that may occur in the determination of the loss in terms of detailed, obtaining a reasoned and auditable new report after that, all the evidence in the file is evaluated together, a report suitable for audit and provision should be received and decided according to the result to be reached, while it was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing.
3- Article 13 of the AAUT in force at the date of the decision. according to the Article “(1) the tariff as shown in the second part of the second section of the subject can be evaluated in money or money of Legal Aid attorney fees, the trial court fixed the tariff for wages seen in the second part of that is specified provided that it does not come under Article 7 of the second paragraph, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Article of the article with the 9th 10th last without prejudice to the provisions of the clause) is determined according to the third part of the tariff.(2) However, the agreed fee may not exceed the accepted or rejected amount. “In a concrete case, the part that is rejected from the point of view of … represented by a proxy is $ 500.00 A COMMITMENT 13/2. according to the article, a power of attorney fee of 500.00 TL should be ruled on, while a power of attorney fee of 1,800.00 TL was not ruled on.
Conclusion: A unanimous decision was made on 22/02/2018 to reject other appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the decision by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney for the reasons described in paragraphs (2) and (3), to return the advance fee to the plaintiff who appealed if requested.
