Menu
En iyi Manavgat Avukatı
  • Anasayfa
  • Biz
  • İletişim
  • Blog
Close Menu
31/12/2022

The Decision of the Supreme Court that Someone Else Gets into an Accident While Driving a Disabled Vehicle Cannot Benefit from Comprehensive Insurance

Rabia Ekşi Uncategorized @tr alanya, antalya, law, lawyer, mahmutlar

SUPREME COURT 17. law office
2016/15663 E.
2017/7899 K.

COURT : Court of First Instance

At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; the file was examined upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney within the period of the decision on the dismissal of the case for the reasons written in the decision, and the Decisionsare considered necessary:

decision

Deputy plaintiff; due to the fact that his client is disabled over 90%… he has insured his license plate vehicle with 10 … 4 automobile insurance policy to the defendant company, the vehicle in question was damaged as a result of a unilateral traffic accident on the highway on 05/09/2015 while under the direction and management of a person named … who follows his client’s affairs, stating that, without prejudice to the claims and litigation rights related to excess, he requested that a total of TL 2,500.00, including TL 1,500.00 as compensation for material damage caused to his client’s vehicle and TL 1,000.00 as part of the loss of value caused to the vehicle, be decided to be collected from the defendant company together with the advance interest from the date of the accident.

The defendant’s attorney defended the dismissal of the case.

The court decided to dismiss the case according to the claim, defense and evidence collected; the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the information and documents in the file, there is no procedural and illegal aspect in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the justification of the court decision, it was unanimously decided on the day of 19/09/2017 to APPROVE the decision found in accordance with the procedural and legal procedure by rejecting all the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney that were not seen on the spot, and to receive the remaining approval fee of 2.20 TL from the appellant plaintiff, the breakdown of which is written below.

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

Divorce, Saying that You Do Not Want Your Spouse in Your Private Life is a Grave Defect Supreme Court Decision Vat is Included in the Sale Price unless It is Stated that It Will be Paid Separately in the Sale of Real Estate – Supreme Court Decision

Related Posts

Uncategorized @tr

TBB BAŞKANI SAĞKAN 5 NİSAN AVUKATLAR GÜNÜNDE KONUŞMA YAPTI

Avukatlar, Türkiye Barolar Birliği’nin öncülüğünde 5 Nisan Avukatlar Günü’nde Ankara’da ‘Savunmanın Bağımsızlığı ve Hukuka Saygı’ yürüyüşü yaptı. Barolar adına konuşma yapan Türkiye Barolar Birliği Başkanı Av. R. Erinç Sağkan, “Biz bugün hukuk devletini savunmak için, yargı bağımsızlığını savunmak için buradayız. Bu ses susturulamaz” dedi. “İSTANBUL BAROSU, HUKUKA AYKIRI YARGI KARARLARIYLA GÖREVİNDEN UZAKLAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR” Anıtpark’ta bir […]

Uncategorized @tr

Determination and Recommendations regarding the Main Procedural Problems in Terms of Earthquake-Related Civil Cases

“It is Not Possible to Get Rid of the Responsibility of Those Responsible by Obscuring the Evidence of the Earthquake, On the Contrary, Their Responsibilities Increase” Prof. Dr. Muhammet Özekes (12.02.2023) If the CCP and procedural rules can be applied consciously, correctly and quickly, the judiciary can get out of this earthquake without being in […]

Uncategorized @tr

The Decision of the Council of State that the Consumer Bank Cannot Receive Account Operating Fees

COUNCIL OF STATE 15. apartment Basis: 2014/9570 Verdict: 2018/1194 Plaintiff : Consumer Problems Association Acting Director : Av… Respondent : Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency Acting Director : Av… Summary of the Case: Article 10 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles regarding Fees to be Collected from Financial Consumers, which entered into force […]

Uncategorized @tr

Negative Detection Case Based on the Guarantee Bond Claim, Exchange Monitoring Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME 19. law office MAIN NUMBER: 2016/3357 DECISION NO: 2016/13899 DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016 >> FOREIGN EXCHANGE MONITORING, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A SECURITY BILL, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STATE OF EVIDENCE 6100/m.222/5 6102/m.64 SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for negative determination. The plaintiff has […]

Uncategorized @tr

Traffic Accident, Wearing a Helmet Should Be Reduced by 20% – Supreme Court Decision

T.C SUPREME 17.law office MAIN NUMBER:2017/5716 DECISION NO:2018/1495 DECISION DATE: 01/03/2018 COURT : Court of First Instance >> SINCE THERE IS A MUTUAL DEFECT DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, NOT WEARING A HELMET, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A MUTUAL DEFECT DISCOUNT OF AT LEAST 20% ACCORDING TO ESTABLISHED APPLICATIONS. At the end of […]

Back To Top
manavgat avukat

İletişim:

+905425139898

+902425139898

info@antalya.law

Adres

Hacet Mahallesi, Canlılar Sokak,
Avukatlar İş Merkezi, No: 7, Daire: 2-3
Alanya / Antalya

Copyright © 2020 Aşıkoğlu Hukuk ™ Aşıkoğlu Uluslararası Hukuk Bürosu, Her Hakkı Saklıdır

WhatsApp us