T.C
SUPREME
17.law office
MAINLY NO:2017/5716
DECISION NO:2018/1495
DATE OF DECISION:01/03/2018
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
SINCE THERE IS A MÜTERAFIK DEFECT DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, HELMET NOT BEING WORN, A MÜTERAFIK DEFECT DISCOUNT OF AT LEAST 20% WILL BE REQUIRED ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED PRACTICES.
At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; within the period of the decision on the partial acceptance of the case for reasons written in the decision, the deputy plaintiffs, the defendant dec …. on appeal by the deputy and the defendant … the file
it was considered necessary to be examined:
decision
The plaintiffs attorney; in the real case the defendant’s driver, combined liability insurance in the case, the plaintiff in support of the accident that occurred as a passenger in a car being found support and explain 5.000,00 TL’er their parents for monetary compensation for 50.000,00 each, for his brother 25.000,00 TL non-pecuniary damages with legal interest from the date of the event requested that a decision be given on the collection.
The defendants have argued the dismissal of the case.
By the court, to warrant reversal, and collected the evidence in the original trial, the plaintiff calculated for 8.132,17 TL compensation from takdiren 5% discount by 7.125 equity,57 TL material, 40.000,00 TL for non-pecuniary damages for the plaintiff calculated 12.473,11 TL compensation from takdiren 5% discount by 11.849 equity,45 TL material, 40.000,00 TL for non-pecuniary damages for the plaintiff 20.000,00 TL spiritual for collection of compensation, combined in the case dominated in terms of the main case, the compensation of the lack of support
provided that there is no repetition in the collection with; 19,260.18 TL financial compensation determined by deducting 5% equity from the compensation of 20,273.87 TL calculated for the plaintiff …, 5% equity from the compensation of 31,397.14 TL calculated for the plaintiff …
it has been decided to collect the financial compensation of 29.827,24 TL determined by deducting; provision, acting plaintiffs, defendant …. the attorney and the defendant … have been appealed to by the attorney.
1-According to the information and documents contained in the file, the evidence based on the justification of the court’s decision is discussed and there is no aspect contrary to the procedure and law in the evaluation, the deputy plaintiffs, the defendant …. the scope of the following subparagraph of the deputy and the defendant’s … deputy
in addition, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of other appeals that remained outside.
2-The case concerns the deprivation of support due to a traffic accident and the request for moral compensation.
Although moral compensation is not a means of enrichment, the provision on this type of claim should be aimed at partially eliminating the pain and elimination caused by the incident when establishing it, and for this reason, taking into account the social and economic situation of the parties, as well as the way the incident occurred, B.K.47th. considering the special cases in the article, a conclusion should be made within the framework of the rules of rights and generations. Because, M.K. 4.in its article, it is stipulated that the judge will rule according to rights and generation in cases where the law gives discretion. Considering the above-mentioned issues, it was found that the assessed moral compensation was somewhat excessive, and the decision had to be overturned in order to judge the moral compensation in accordance with equity.
3-In a concrete case, if a 5% discount was given by the court because the support was not wearing a helmet because it had a müterafik defect, the discount rate that was appreciated is less than the established practice of our apartment, and a 20% müterafik defect discount is made
it was necessary to decide whether the decision should be overturned.
4-Although the plaintiffs’ attorney requested that the legal interest be decided on the date of the incident in terms of the petition for non-pecuniary compensation and the non-pecuniary claims, it was not considered correct that the court did not make a positive –negative decision on the interest claim, the decision was therefore
it was necessary to decide whether it would deteriorate well.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, the deputy plaintiffs, the defendant …. deputy and defendant … refusal of other appeals of the deputy, the defendant for the reasons described in paragraph (2) … the defendant for the reasons described in paragraph (3), the defendant … the defendant for the reasons described in paragraph (3) …. if the decision is OVERTURNED by the acceptance of the appeals of the attorney of the plaintiffs for the reasons described in paragraph 4 of the proxy of the plaintiffs, the fee received in advance is requested, the plaintiffs who appeal at the request of the defendant …. it was decided unanimously on 01/03/2018 to return it to the defendant.
