“…Article 47 of the Code of Obligations numbered 818 contains the provision that in the event of both death and bodily harm that fall within the scope of the regulation of this article, the judge shall award an appropriate moral compensation <taking into account the special circumstances>. This is clearly understood from the wording of the article, as well as the essence of life and bodily integrity that it aims to protect.
The purpose of moral compensation is to satisfy the victim rather than to punish the perpetrator. Moral compensation aims to partially and to the extent possible, restore the peace of mind of the person who has suffered bodily harm, and the pain and anguish that has been and will be felt in the future. In accordance with Article 4 of the Turkish Civil Code, the judge should determine the amount of non-pecuniary damages by using his/her right of discretion according to right and objectivity. (HGK. 14.11.2012 dated 2012/4-510 Esas- 2012/786 K.)
According to the provision of Article 47 of the Code of Obligations; the amount of money that the judge will decide to be given to the right holder under the name of moral damage, taking into account the special circumstances, must be in accordance with justice. This money to be awarded has a unique quality that has a function similar to compensation to create moral peace in the injured party. It is not a punishment, nor does it aim to compensate for a damage related to property law. Therefore, the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose. The amount to be assessed should be the amount necessary to achieve the effect of the feeling of satisfaction desired to be achieved in the current situation. In the justification of the 22.06.1966 dated and 7/7 numbered Supreme Court of Appeal Unification of Jurisprudence Decision, the special circumstances and conditions that will affect the amount of moral compensation to be assessed are clearly shown. Since these may vary according to each case, the judge, while exercising his/her right of discretion in this regard, should show the reasons affecting it in an accurate manner according to objective measures at the place of decision…”
“…. According to Article 45/III of the Code of Obligations, the compensation for deprivation of support belongs to those who are deprived of the support, not to the persons left behind by the support as heirs. There is no dispute that the persons who may request compensation for deprivation of support may be persons other than the heirs. In the case of a liability of the deceased arising from a traffic accident and when the conditions are met, the heirs are responsible for this, but the persons who are deprived of support due to the same event but who are not heirs are not responsible for this. Paragraph 2 of Article 86 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 stipulates that the judge may reduce the amount of compensation if the injured party is at fault in the traffic accident and leaves this to the discretion of the judge. It is not possible to argue that the legislator, who does not require the reduction in the event of the fault of the injured party, leaves it to the discretion of the judge and does not include any regulation that the said issue can be asserted against others, has a forgetfulness here. The reason for not including a provision in this direction lies in the fact that the operator’s liability is accepted as hazard liability.
The aim here is to protect the members of the society from the danger created by the vehicles, regardless of fault. The legislator, who leaves the reduction according to fault to the discretion of the judge even in the case of bodily harm to the driver of the vehicle who caused the accident by acting negligently himself (provided that he is not grossly negligent), and who includes the bodily harm of the specified relatives of the operator, who is responsible for the danger, within the scope of compulsory insurance with subparagraph (b) of Article 92 of the TCC, has made these arrangements in order to protect those who are deprived of the support of the driver of the vehicle who is responsible for the fault, and has protected the members of the society from the danger of the industrial revolution and mechanization in this way.
After these general explanations, when we return to the concrete case; in the traffic accident that resulted in the death of the support, the support was 6/8 at fault and there was no gross negligence. The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident is 2/8 at fault. As a result, it has been accepted by the General Assembly of Civil Chambers that the plaintiff, who filed the present lawsuit as a third party, may request support compensation from the compulsory financial liability insurer of the vehicle driven by their support, who was partially at fault in the traffic accident….”
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking