T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Department of Law
Basis: 2015/18158
Decision: 2016/9853
Decision Date: 14.06.2016
ACTION FOR DETERMINATION – WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DEATH WORKS WITH INSURED AT THE DEFENDANT’S WORKPLACE, THERE IS NO CONDITIONS FOR GOING TO THE PROVINCE – THE OWNER’S PERSONAL BUSINESS IS GOING TO THIS JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTION
SUMMARY: In the concrete case; Although there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased was working as an insured at the defendant’s workplace, since it was understood that the reason and purpose of his visit to his province did not meet the conditions listed, the deceased went for his own business and died in an accident during this time, while the court should have decided to reject the case, it was wrong to accept the case. Making a decision by the court without taking these material and legal facts into consideration is against the procedure and the law and is the reason for annulment.
(506 S. K. Art. 11, 13)
Case and Decision: The plaintiff’s decedent asked the defendants to determine that the accident he had while working at the employer’s workplace was a work accident.
The court decided to grant the request, as stated in the decision.
After the verdict was appealed by the attorney of the Institution and … from the defendants, it was understood that the appeal request was in due time and after the report prepared by the Investigation Judge … and the papers in the file were read, the necessity of the work was considered and the following decision was determined.
Case; the plaintiff’s wife, deceased, on 06.03.2011, it is related to the request for determination of the traffic accident as a work accident.
The court decided to accept the case.
From the records and documents in the file; In the report of the defendant Institution inspector dated 12.10.2011; In the statement given to the defendant Institution inspector, it was stated that there was no contention that the deceased was working in the rehabilitation center on the date of the incident, but that the deceased’s departure was not related to his job and workplace, that he went for completely private reasons, and therefore the incident was not a work accident; he stated that the deceased was an unofficial partner to the defendant school, but he seemed to be working as an insured, that he said that he had to pay his debts in order to take over the shares, therefore he was considering buying a tractor from Antalya on a deferred basis and selling it and paying the debts with his money,
Such lawsuits regarding the request for the determination of work accident arise from Article 11 of Law No. 506 (Article 13 of Law No. 5510). According to the aforementioned article, a work accident can occur a) while the insured is at the workplace, b) due to the work being carried out by the employer, c) when the insured is sent to another place on duty by the employer, d) when the insured is not working with a vehicle provided by the employer. These are the events that cause the insured to malfunction immediately or later, during their transportation to and from the place where they are made. In order for a damaging insurance event to be considered a work accident, it is a condition that 1) the person exposed to the insurance event is insured, 2) the insurance event occurs in one of the limited and limited circumstances specified in the article. In other words, for an insurance event to be considered a work accident, two conditions must be met together, and there is no specific proof method for work accident detection cases. It is possible to prove these cases with any kind of evidence.
In the concrete case; Although there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased worked as an insured at the defendant’s workplace, since it was understood that the reason and purpose of his visit to the province did not meet the above-mentioned conditions, the deceased went for his own personal business and died in an accident during this time, while the court should have decided to reject the case, it was wrong to accept the case.
Making a written decision by the court without taking these material and legal facts into consideration is against the procedure and the law and is the reason for annulment.
Therefore, the appeals of the appellants aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the verdict should be overturned.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 14.06.2016 that the judgment be reversed for the reasons explained above, and that the appeal fee be returned to the defendants upon request.
