Persons who are victims in the care of bodily damages such as death or injury due to a traffic accident and damages caused to their assets may file a claim for material and moral compensation against those who are responsible for a traffic accident.
However, in 2016, legislation and changes to the general conditions of insurance, damage and liability insurance before resorting to a lawsuit within the time limit provided for in the relevant company documents and make a written application to be determined by the general conditions of compulsory liability insurance, the insurance company, or one of the organizations were obliged to export to Central.
If insurance companies do not respond to the application in writing no later than 15 days from the date of application, or if there is a dispute that the answer given does not meet the request, in this case, the injured may file a lawsuit in the courts.
One of the important issues at the litigation stage is that the calculation of the financial damage suffered by a person injured in a traffic accident / disabled person is based on the disability ratio suffered by the person, the incapacity for work / loss of working and earning power caused by this disability. The report to be received on disability should be prepared in accordance with the Regulation on the Determination of the Rate of Loss of Working Power and Earning Power in the Profession. In the case law of the Court of Cassation, the reports taken in accordance with the Regulation on the Determination of the Rate of Loss of Working Power and Earning Power in the Profession are based on the calculation of material damage.
Sample Supreme Court Decision on the subject;
T.C.SUPREME COURT 17. DAIRESIE LAW. 2014/5946K. 2014/5222K.T 7.4.2014
“At the end of the trial of the cancellation of the objection between the parties; the file was examined by the defendant’s attorney upon his appeal within the period of the provision on partial acceptance of the case due to the reasons written in the decision, Decisively considered:
decision
Counsel for the plaintiff, defendant S. of his client.. K..d, who was in the vehicle as a result of a one-sided traffic accident of the vehicle in which he was the owner.. H..stating that the defendant was injured and left disabled by 48%, D, who was injured and left disabled in the accident upon the application made due to the lack of traffic insurance of the defendant’s vehicle during the accident.. H.. stating that they paid for the paid payment from the defendant, he requested that the continuation of the follow-up and the execution denial compensation be decided with the cancellation of the objection to the execution proceedings initiated for the collection of the payment made by the defendant.
Defendant S.. K.. although the registry is operated by the vehicles involved in accident on their behalf, and the possessor is not sold with an external sales contract prior to the date of the accident, an accident that has nothing to do with the event that had been injured as a passenger in the vehicle during the found, and the vehicle should be taken into account due to the lack of commercial no move by declaring that the dismissal of the case is defended.Reported D.. H.. his attorney defended the dismissal of the case by stating that there was no legal basis for the notification.
According to the evidence collected by the court and the entire scope of the file, with the partial acceptance of the case, it was decided to continue the follow-up with the cancellation of the objection to the debt in the enforcement follow-up file of the Tirebolu Enforcement Directorate numbered 2012/457; the judgment was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
1-According to the information and documents in the file, the justification of the court decision, the discussion and evaluation of the evidence based on the procedure and the absence of a direction contrary to the law, it was decided to reject other appeals of the defendant’s attorney that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph.
2-The case, the non-case driver of the vehicle registered on behalf of the defendant, who does not have a compulsory liability insurance policy, is A.A.d, who was injured as a result of a one-sided traffic accident that took place while he was in the dispatch and administration of..H..’a plaintiff G.. H.. it is related to the cancellation of the objection to the enforcement proceedings for the collection of the permanent incapacity compensation paid by the defendant prior to the execution and the request for the continuation of the proceedings.
According to the established Supreme Court practice, D, who was injured and disabled in a traffic accident while working, is out of the case..H..in the calculation of the material damage suffered by the, not the disability rate suffered by the, but the incapacity arising due to this disability, in other words, the loss rate in working and earning power should be taken as the basis.
Based on the court’s decision, Giresun Prof.Dr . . He. In the disabled health board report from the State Hospital, the victim out of the case is D..H..it was reported that the loss of body function of 73%, and the part of it caused by a traffic accident is 48%, the report does not specify that the criteria stipulated in the Regulation on the Determination of the Rate of Loss of Working Power and Earning Power in the Profession are based on the report. However, the report to be received on permanent disability should be prepared in accordance with the Regulation on the Determination of the Rate of Loss of Working Power and Earning Power in the Profession according to the date of the accident on 21.11.2011.
In this case, the Forensic Medicine Institution of the court 3.Non-case D from the Specialized Department..H..while a new report should be taken on the rate of incapacity for work, which will be the basis for calculating the loss of Working Power and Earning Power in the Profession according to the criteria stipulated in the Regulation on the Rate of Determination of disability Status, it is not considered correct to make a decision based on the report of the health board, which is not sufficient to establish a provision.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 7.4.2014 to reject the other appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the judgment by accepting the appeals of the defendant’s attorney for the reasons described in paragraph (2), and to return the advance fee to the appellant defendant upon request.”
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.