How to Determine Compensation for Loss of Value Due to a Traffic Accident – Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME

17.law office
Basis: 2017/751
Verdict: 2018/1274
Decision Date: 22.02.2018

LOSS OF VALUE DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT – IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE LOSS OF VALUE LOSS ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNDAMAGED USED MARKET FAIR VALUE OF THE VEHICLE BEFORE THE ACCIDENT AND THE FAIR VALUE AFTER THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND WAS REPAIRED Dec
SUMMARY: 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, while a report suitable for audit and judgment should be received and a decision should be made according to the conclusion to be reached, it was not considered correct to establish a judgment in written form.

(6100 P. K. m. 266) (1136 P. K. m. 168)

At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; due to the reasons written in the decision, the file was examined upon the appeal by the plaintiff’s attorney within the period of the decision regarding the partial acceptance of the case, and Decisively considered:

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 …; has defended the dismissal of the case. According to the evidence collected and the expert report adopted by the court; … It was decided to dismiss the case from the point of view of the defendant, the damage fee of 2,520.00 TL from the point of view of the defendant, together with the legal interest to be processed from 16/09/2013, was taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff; the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff.

1- According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the compelling reasons, the lack of an error in the evaluation of the evidence, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of other appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney that are outside the scope of the following paragraph and are not considered appropriate.

2- The case is related to the claim of loss of value caused by a traffic accident. The determination of the loss of value in the vehicle in the expert report based on the judgment, which is based on the determination of the loss of value by our department, the vehicle was not damaged on the date of the accident 2.2, which was repaired after the accident with the hand market value.the calculation was made without complying with the criterion of the difference between the hand and the market value. Dec. A judgment cannot be established based on the report in which the loss of value was determined by the method specified in the expert’s 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, receiving a new report that is justified and open for audit, after that, all the evidence in the file is evaluated together, a report that is suitable for audit and verdict should be received and a decision should be made based on the conclusion to be reached, it was not considered correct to establish a verdict in writing.

3- The 13th of the AAUT, which is in force on 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 the concrete case, the part that was rejected from the point of view of … represented by a proxy is 500,00 TL, AAÜT 13/2. according to the article, while the 500,00 TL power of attorney fee should be ruled, the ruling on the 1.800,00 TL power of attorney fee was also not accurate.

Conclusion: On the day of 22/02/2018, it was unanimously decided to reject other appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the judgment by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney for the reasons described in paragraphs (2) and (3), and to return the advance fee to the appellant plaintiff upon request.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.