17th CIVIL CHAMBER | Basis No: 2016/16133 | Decision No: 2017/8256 “LEGAL PRECEDENT” COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
JUDGMENT: Following the trial of the compensation lawsuit between the parties; upon the appeal by the defendant (…) against the judgment rendered for the acceptance of the lawsuit for the reasons written in the decision, the file was examined and the requirements were considered:
– D E C I S I O N – The plaintiff’s counsel stated that on 17.07.2013, while the plaintiff was driving their vehicle with license plate …, a chain-reaction traffic accident occurred. The accident involved a vehicle driven by … (plate …) hitting the plaintiff from behind after being struck by another vehicle (plate …) driven by the defendant …. It was asserted that the accident occurred due to the fully at-fault action of the defendant …; and since the vehicle driven by … was registered to the other defendant … Ltd. Co., the defendant company is also liable for the resulting damage. Stating that the plaintiff had no fault and that damage occurred to the plaintiff’s vehicle resulting in a loss of value (değer kaybı), and that the vehicle remained in the service repair shop for a period; the counsel requested an injunction on the traffic records of the defendants’ vehicles and, reserving the right to claim further amounts, requested the collection of 1,000.00 TL in pecuniary damages from the defendants jointly and severally, together with legal interest to accrue from the date of the accident. The claim was increased to 3,500.00 TL via a correction (ıslah) petition dated 26.10.2015.
The defendants requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Based on the allegations, defenses, collected evidence, and the adopted expert report, the court determined that: as of the date of the accident, the market value of an equivalent undamaged vehicle was 58,500.00 TL, and the market value after the repairs following the accident was 55,000.00 TL. Accordingly, the court decided to accept the lawsuit and collect 3,500.00 TL in pecuniary damages from the defendants jointly and severally (müştereken ve müteselsilen), together with legal interest starting from the incident date of 17/07/2013. The judgment was appealed by the defendant ….
Considering the evidence collected and evaluated by the court, and specifically that there is no irregularity in basing the judgment on the fault rate and the compensation calculation specified in the expert report—which was prepared in accordance with the occurrence of the incident and the contents of the file—all groundless appeal objections of the defendant … are rejected. It was UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED on 27.09.2017 to UPHOLD (ONANMASINA) the judgment, which was found to be in accordance with procedure and the law, and to charge the remaining 180.00 TL of the approval fee to the appellant defendant ….