T.C.
SUPREME
- LAW OFFICE
Main No.: 2012/10984 Decision No.: 2014/2469 K. Date: 13.2.2014
In the case between the parties, Antalya 1. Dec. Actually given by the court and the date 08/12/2011 2007/4 trade-examination of the plaintiff’s attorney 2011/481 the decision of the hearing if requested by the polling set for the hearing the defendant’s attorney is not understood by the other day and present 11.02.2014 Av. M. He. after the hearing, due to the intensity and short duration of the trial work, the work was examined and the decision was made forward. After the report organized by the Audit Judge was listened to and the petition, orders, minutes of the hearing and all documents in the file were read and examined, the need for the work was discussed and considered:
9 Of the agency agreement issued between the defendant and the agency in which the insurance premium dec the subject of the case is deposited. according to the article, pension policies and other life insurance policies subject to profit share are collected from the insured on the first working day after the date of collection of the personal income accruals from the cash company or A. Pension A.Sh. one of the bank accounts registered in the name is that you have to make your deposit via wire transfer online, My client has fulfilled although the actions of the defendant by the act of not accomplishing the agency did not check to if he didn’t send it and edit the policy also invested as you didn’t pay the premium amount, arguing against unfair challenge made the executive proceeding, the defendant continued to deny the cancellation of the pursuit of objection to the decision to follow up with demand and has prosecuted and executive compensation should be given.
The decency of the defendant is that there is no contract between the plaintiff and his client, as well as there is no application form requesting the client to provide the company with paid money and insurance in order to make an insurance policy by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s agent E. B. arguing that the money he deposited into his account had nothing to do with the client’s company, and that the money allegedly paid to the agent was paid on the basis of the insurance policy, he asked for the case to be dismissed.
19 Of Regulation No. 24681 on Private Pension Intermediaries, which is in force at the time of payment of the claim, defense, expert report and the subject of the case in accordance with the full scope of the file, according to the Court. article 23 of the Regulation on Private Pension Intermediation No. 25391, which repeals this Regulation. in the article, it is dec that the individual pension agent cannot collect under the names of entry fees, contributions or similar names in any way, and also that the agent does not have such authority in the agency agreement concluded between the defendant and his agent, the agent cannot establish this contract because the money deposited in the agent’s account was not transferred to the defendant’s insurance company account in the case of the case, therefore the defendant is not responsible for the refund of the money received by the agent without authorization, and it was decided to dismiss the case, The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.The case relates to the request for the collection of the premium payment to the agent from the defendant insurance company.The plaintiff claimed that although the defendant had paid a premium to issue an insurance policy to the account of his authorized agent, the defendant had not returned his money, as well as whether he had issued a policy, and the defendant had requested the money he had deposited.
The case of the defendant on the date of payment subject to a lawsuit in activity as agents of out-of-Emrullah Ridge agency that money sent to the account except for the purpose of paying premiums for any other purpose, such as the absence of evidence in the file that is sent to the agent according to the nature of life insurance payment will be made in order to ensure the establishment of a relationship out of it by suggesting that that are made for a purpose and must be proven.In the concrete case, the plaintiff, he paid a total of TL 30,079.65 to the out-of-case agent account.1. The Agency Agreement between the defendant and the out-of-case agent regarding the “Powers and Responsibilities of the AGENT”. dec. in Article 9, it is stated that the agent is authorized to work with the agency power of attorney in the Life and Personal Accident Insurance branches that are the subject of the company’s participation, to receive insurance offers, to collect premium advances in relation to these offers. in the article, the agent is not authorized to collect insurance premiums, pension policies and other life branch insurances subject to profit share are collected from the insured premium advances (pey akçesi) to the company or A in cash no later than noon until 12.00 on the first working day after the day of collection. Pension A.Sh. it is established that he has to deposit it by on-line transfer to one of the bank accounts registered in his name. In this case, from the case where the advance premium authorized agents, insurance premium payment by the plaintiff for any purpose other than the establishment of the relationship that was made in order to ensure payments are made unless it can be proven, the defendant was charged the money to be transferred to the company with the internal agency relationship between the companies that are not ilgilendirip the defendant, and the defendant insurance company to the authorized agencies of this issue in the process of relying proposed defendant against the plaintiff for payment to the agent of the insurance company, the possible lack of responsibility when the decision should be made, the decision to dismiss the case on written grounds was not considered correct, and therefore the decision had to be overturned in the best interests of the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 13.02.2014 that the decision would be OVERTURNED in the best interests of the plaintiff by accepting the appeals of the acting plaintiff, returning the appeal to the appellant at the request of the advance fee he paid, on 13.02.2014.
