EN SUPREME COURT
law office
Originally: 2015/18158
The Verdict: 2016/9853
Decision Date: 14.06.2016
PROCEDURE FOR DETECTION – WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE INSURED ABOUT THE DEATH AND THE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYMENT IN THE WORKPLACE, THERE IS NO CONDITION TO GO TO THE COUNTY – THE OWNER’S PERSONAL AFFAIRS GO TO THIS JURISDICTION, AND THE JURISDICTION
SUMMARY: In the concrete case; although there is no dispute that the deceased worked as an insured at the defendant’s workplace, since it was understood that the reason and purpose of arrival in the province where he was located did not meet the conditions listed, the deceased went for his own job and died as a result of an accident at this time, and while the court should have decided to dismiss the case, the acceptance of the case is erroneous. The decision made by the court without taking into account these material and legal facts is contrary to the procedure and the law and is the reason for cancellation.
(506 SK Md. 11, 13)
Case and Decision:
The claimant’s deceased’s request from the defendants was to request the determination that the accident suffered by the employer while working at the workplace was a work accident.
The court decided to accept the request as stated in the decision.
Upon the decision appealed by the lawyer of the institution and the defendants …, it was understood that the appeal request was made on time, and after reading the report and the documents in the file organized by the Investigating Judge …, the necessity of the study was evaluated and the following decision was made.
The case is related to the claimant’s request that the traffic accident caused by his wife, who died on 06.03.2011, be considered as a work accident.
The court decided to accept the case.
From the records and documents contained in the file; In the report of the Defendant Institution inspector dated 12.10.2011; In the statement given to the Defendant Institution inspector, there was no dispute that the deceased worked in the rehabilitation center on the date of the incident, but the departure of the deceased was not related to his job and workplace, he went for purely private reasons, so the incident was not a work accident; paying paid debts to take over the shares, it is understood that the deceased was an unofficial partner of the defendant school, but he worked as an insured, he had to pay his debts, so he was thinking of buying and selling tractors from Antalya on a term basis, and he was thinking of paying his debts with his money.,
Such cases related to the request for determination of occupational accidents are subject to Article 11 of the Law No. 506. from Article (13 of the Law No. 5510. substance) is due to. According to the said article, an occupational accident may occur a) while the Insured is at work, b) due to work carried out by the employer, c) during the transfer of the insured by the employer to another place on duty, d) when the Insured is not working with a vehicle provided by the employer.
These are the events that cause the insured to malfunction immediately or later while traveling to and from the place where it is made. In order for a damaging insurance event to be considered a work accident; 1) The person exposed to the insurance event must be insured, 2) The condition that the insurance event occurs in one of the limited and limited situations specified in the article is sought. In other words, in order for an insurance event to be considered a work accident, two conditions must occur together, and there is no special method of proof for work accident detection cases. Dec. It is possible to prove these situations with all kinds of evidence.
In the concrete case; although there is no dispute that the deceased worked as an insured at the defendant’s workplace, since it was understood that the reason and purpose of the defendant’s arrival did not comply with the above-mentioned conditions, the deceased went for his own personal business and died as a result of an accident at this time, the court should have decided to dismiss the case, but the acceptance of the case was erroneous.
The fact that the court makes a written decision without taking into account these material and legal facts is contrary to the procedure and the law and is the reason for the violation.
For this reason, it was necessary to accept the plaintiffs’ appeals against these aspects and to overturn the judgment.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 to overturn the judgment for the reasons explained above and to return the appeal fee to the defendants.