T.C. SUPREME
11.law office
Basis: 2003/13739
Decision: 2004/8533
Decision Date: 20.09.2004
Case: Şereflikoçhisar First Instance 2 in the case between the parties.Dec.26.06.2003 date and 2002/98-2003/107 decision given by the court of law was requested by the attorney of the plaintiff and the co-operative defendant and some of the defendants ‘ deputies and it was understood that the appeal petition was issued within the period, after the report organized by the examination Judge Ata Durak for the case file was heard, and again the petition in the file, the minutes of the hearing and all documents were read and reviewed, the work was discussed and considered:
Decision: the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, in order to get a loan from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs cooperative, cooperative agreement pursuant to Article 8 of the 3rd clause of the agreement and the partners, the partners purchased to distribute to bovine animals that you have to take out insurance for a period of one year, the defendant, who is an insurance agent for the purpose of cooperative and rights holders to apply and you took the insurance for your client, the client status report on bank loans cooperatives paid to this branch of şereflikoçhisar Z, he claimed that the defendants, despite this, avoided paying the insurance premium debts, and that the enforcement proceedings initiated in this regard stopped as a result of the wrongful objection of the defendants, and demanded and sued the collection of 40% of the enforcement-denial compensation from the defendants with the cancellation of the defendants ‘ objections.
The co-operative defendant and some of the defendants ‘ attorneys, arguing that no insurance contract was signed between their client and the plaintiff, asked for the dismissal of the case and also requested and sued the plaintiff for 40% compensation for decency.
Based on the collected evidence, it was decided by the court to reject the claim for compensation for decency of the plaintiff and the defendant, which cannot be proved on the grounds that there is no written document indicating that an insurance contract has been concluded between the parties, and that the conditions for compensation for malice have not been formed.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff and the co-operative defendant and some acting defendants.
1-according to the information and documents in the case file, there is no procedural and illegal direction in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the grounds of the court’s decision, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all appeals that were not seen in place of the representative of the defendants.
2-as for the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney; Article 11 / h of the regulation on state aid to investment activities of Agricultural Cooperatives published in the Official Gazette dated 30.04.1990 from the examination of the information and documents in the file, T.C. Z. The provisions of the protocol between the Ministry of Agriculture and rural affairs with the bank referred to the bank’s general letter No. 5797 31.08.1999 date and cooperative partners in accordance with Article 8 of the agreement and 3 of the agreement, the insurance requirement of the animals should be fulfilled davalilarca price to be paid, the insurance agent of the plaintiff resides, where A. BP. General Directorate of T.C. Z. It is understood that the said bank paid the defendants after informing the Bank’s Şereflikoçhisar Branch Office that the cows belonging to the defendants were insured, and the insurance coverage was started by issuing separate policies for the benefit of the defendants by the plaintiff agent.
TTK.in accordance with Article 1263 of the Law, insurance contracts are not form-dependent contracts. For this reason, insurance policies are not a condition of validity of the contract, but only a means of proving the rights and obligations of the parties. A lot of documents described above are also available in the proof file and credits have been taken by the defendants based on these documents. In addition, the plaintiff’s policy arrangement without the application of the defendant also contradicts the usual course of life. In the face of this situation, the court accepted that a valid insurance contract was established between the parties, and the amount of receivables that the plaintiff could claim should be determined and decided according to its result, while the provision in writing was not correct and required decoupling.
Conclusion: For the reasons described in paragraph ( 1 )above, the refusal of all appeals by the deputy of the client defendants for the reasons described in paragraph ( 2), the acceptance of appeals by the deputy of the plaintiff for the reasons described in paragraph (2) and the DETERIORATION of the decision for the benefit of the plaintiff, the balance written below is 2.220.000.-it was unanimously decided on 20.09.2004 that the lira appeal fee should be taken from the co-operative defendant and some of the defendants who appealed, and that the appeal fee paid should be returned to the plaintiff who appealed if he requested it in advance.
