It is understood that the case is related to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages due to bodily harm and that the court has made a judgement in accordance with the expert report, and that PMF 1931 life table data was used in the expert report taken as basis for the judgement. The actual amount of damage consists of the sum of the earnings to be obtained in the active and passive periods based on the life expectancy of the beneficiaries and the support on the date of the event.
Although the life expectancy of the beneficiaries was determined by the “PMF” tables dated 1931 obtained from France in previous years, the “National Mortality Table” called “TRH 2010” was prepared with the studies of the Prime Ministry Undersecretariat of Treasury, Hacettepe University Faculty of Science, Department of Actuarial Sciences, BNB Consultancy, Marmara University and Başkent University, and the actual loss calculation is essentially a calculation based on assumptions and it is essential to use the data closest to the reality. In this case, in order to ensure unity in the calculation of compensation between other institutions and the Supreme Court of Appeals Chambers, and also considering that this table contains data specific to our country and up-to-date, our Chamber has decided that taking the TRH 2010 table as a basis in determining the remaining life in compensation calculations will be more appropriate to the updated country realities. Accordingly, considering the vested rights (such as the income taken as the basis for compensation, the year of minimum wage taken as the basis, and the dates of the period that have been processed/will be processed), an additional report should be obtained from the expert to calculate the amount of compensation by determining the possible remaining life expectancy of the plaintiffs’ deceased according to the TRH 2010 Life Table, and the decision should be reversed (4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – Decision: 2021/7332).
The lawsuit is related to the claim for pecuniary compensation for bodily injury arising from a traffic accident. In the actuary expert report dated 10.05.2019, which was taken as the basis for the award by the Appeal Arbitral Tribunal; without determining the possible remaining life expectancy of the plaintiff, who was 20 years old on the date of the accident, according to the TRH 2010 Table, it was assumed that the plaintiff had the possibility of living until the age of 99 according to the TRH Table and based on this age, the working / unknown period calculation was made with the “annuity method”, the start and end dates of the active period and the passive period were not clearly written, and the report is not suitable for audit in this respect. In this case, while it is necessary to determine the remaining life expectancy of the plaintiff, to obtain an additional report from the expert who prepared a report that is suitable for inspection by showing the start and end dates and durations of the active and passive periods, and to make a decision by taking into account the procedural vested right in favour of the defendant who appealed the verdict according to the result to be formed, it was not correct to make a decision in written form with incomplete examination (4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – Decision: 2021/6967).
DURATION OF SUPPORT AND AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUPPORT
In the event that some of those deprived of support have not filed a lawsuit, it should be decided to pay the amount of assistance that would have been received if the support had not died. Without allocating the share that should be allocated to the other non-suees, it was required to be reversed ( 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation 1965 / 7018 Decision).
The purpose of the compensation for deprivation of support is to compensate the person who has lost his/her support for the money equivalent to the assistance that will ensure the continuation of the level of social and economic life in which he/she was living before the death, in other words, the maintenance expenses. In the distribution of the income of the support, the existence of other beneficiaries must be taken into consideration. The person who has lost his/her support may claim only the amount of assistance that should be provided to him/her ( 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 1974 / 1207 Decision).
In order to determine the compensation for deprivation of support, while distributing the income of the support among the supported persons, the share of each of them should be determined separately, regardless of whether they are plaintiffs or not, whether they are plaintiffs or not, and the shares allocated to those who have not filed a lawsuit or whose lawsuits have been left to application should be excluded from the judgement, and only the shares of the supported persons who have filed the lawsuit should be ruled (9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 1969 / 3816 Decision).
The fact that the person who has the right to receive a share from the deceased’s income has not filed a lawsuit does not result in the distribution of his/her share to others (9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 1980 / 11824 Decision).
It is unlawful to keep the support share of the beneficiary mother fixed by not increasing the support share of the beneficiary father for the period after he ceased to support, and the decision should be reversed for this reason (10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 1997 / 4409 Decision).
The support share of the other beneficiary mother, who continues to receive support for the period when the father ceases to receive support, should be increased. Because the father has ceased to receive support (10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 1995 / 10932 Decision).
The share to be allocated by the support during the period when the support is single should be different from the share to be allocated after marriage and after having a child (17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 2011 / 5358 Decision).
In the calculation of the compensation for deprivation of support, the share to be allocated by the support to the mother will have different results when the support was single and different results after marriage. In other words, if the insured had lived, he would have been able to provide more assistance to his mother until the date of his marriage and less after his marriage. The calculation should be made according to this fact (10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 1997 / 627 Decision).
DETERMINATION OF THE WAGE IN THE CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATION OF SUPPORT
In the calculation of the compensation, the actual wage must be taken as a basis ( 21st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 2000 / 5128 Decision ).
While it is necessary to investigate and determine whether the deceased was working in another job on the date of the incident, if he was working, what he was doing and what his earnings were, if any, in an auditable manner, if the wage is not determined, the calculation should be made based on the minimum wage and a decision should be made according to the result, it was not correct to establish a written judgement based on incomplete examination in this respect (11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 2009 / 7307 Decision).
The lawsuit is related to the claim for compensation for deprivation of financial support filed pursuant to Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and according to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, the income status of the support on the date of death must be proved by the claimant. If this is not proved, it is accepted that the minimum wage will be taken as the basis in the calculation of the compensation for material support ( 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation – 2003 / 5599 Decision )
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking