Republic of Turkey
Supreme
Council of Justice
2009/13-183
2009/243
June 3, 2009
Claim for compensatory and non-compensatory damages (defective vehicle/plaintiff’s claims and matters not explicitly claimed individually—the amount determined by the judge is proportional to the claim/there is no violation of the principle of adherence to the claim)
The judge is bound by the plaintiffs’ claims (claim for compensation due to the storage of the defective vehicle/the plaintiffs’ claims and matters they did not individually and explicitly claim); the judge will also take into account that the decision was rendered in accordance with the claims.
Protection of the defective vehicle (claim for compensation/the plaintiffs’ claims and matters they did not individually and explicitly claim—the amount awarded by the judge is proportional to the claim/there is no violation of the principle of adherence to the claim)
1086 / Art. 74
Summary:
The case concerns a claim for material and moral damages. The plaintiff sought compensation for damages on the grounds that he could not use the defective vehicle during the final hearing and was forced to keep it in a closed garage. It is clear that the judge is bound by the claims and defenses of both parties and cannot render a decision beyond the scope of the claim. In this specific case, vehicle-related expenses—including garage fees, insurance costs, motor vehicle tax, and traffic license fees—were calculated in the individual complaint and the total amount was claimed.
The plaintiff’s attorney explicitly stated that there were no claims or demands regarding compensation for the period during which the vehicle could not be used due to being out of service. The Local Court partially granted the claim, taking this request into account. Therefore, it is understood that the court rendered its decision without exceeding the scope of the claim. In this case, the appeal decision, which is in accordance with procedure and law, must be affirmed.
CASE:
At the conclusion of the trial between the parties regarding a “claim for material and moral damages,” the Denizli Criminal Court of First Instance (by Court Decision) issued its decision dated May 3, 2007, Case No. 2006/570, partially accepting the case; the decision No. 2007/252 K issued by the Civil Court; the Supreme Court’s decision dated February 26, 2008, and numbered 2007/13096 E; The Supreme Court’s decision No. 2008/2623 K, dated 13, and the announcement No. 9920 K, dated July 15, 2008, regarding the correction of the decision due to a violation, upon the request of the plaintiff’s attorney;
(…The plaintiff claims that the brand-new vehicle purchased from the defendants was replaced pursuant to a final court decision due to a manufacturing defect, that the subject vehicle was stored in a closed garage and could not be used, that the plaintiff paid garage fees, insurance premiums, motor vehicle tax, and traffic license fees, and that the plaintiff’s mental well-being was impaired, and is seeking 7,087. 576,745 TL in compensatory damages and 3,000,000,000 TL in non-compensatory damages.)
The defendants requested that the case be dismissed.
The court decided to partially grant the claim, to collect compensation in the amount of 3,791.98 TL with interest from the date of the lawsuit, and to reject the claim for non-pecuniary damages; following the parties’ appeals, our decision was overturned by our ruling dated February 26, 2008, numbered 2007/13096 and 2008/2623, and this time the plaintiff requested the correction of the overturned decision.
1-
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence upon which the decision was based, the legally required grounds, and particularly the absence of any inconsistency in the evaluation of the evidence, the plaintiff’s other objections regarding the correction of the decision—excluding the scope of the following section—must be rejected.
2-
The plaintiff claimed that he was unable to use the defective vehicle during the final phase of the lawsuit and was forced to keep the vehicle in a closed garage, and thus sought compensation for damages. File: In the review conducted on January 4, 2002, in Consumer Court Case No. 2001/599 in Denizli, it was determined that the vehicle had 10,016 km on the odometer and was a 4-speed transmission; however, the delivery receipt dated July 25, 2003, indicates that the vehicle had 10,053 km on the odometer.
Furthermore, the expert report dated April 24, 2002, included in the final case file, determined that the vehicle was out of service for 78 days due to malfunctions. In this situation, the plaintiff may claim compensation for damages incurred during the periods when the vehicle could not be used. Based on the results of the court’s investigation into this matter, while the judgment should have been rendered in writing with the acceptance of certain claims, the manner in which the judgment was rendered is contrary to procedure and law and constitutes a violation.
However, during the appeal review conducted by our Chamber, it was determined that these issues had been completely overlooked; therefore, it was decided to overturn the court’s decision as stated above, upon accepting the plaintiff’s request for correction of the decision…
At the conclusion of the retrial, the court overturned the previous decision on the grounds that the case file had been tampered with and rendered a new judgment.
The aforementioned law was reviewed by the General Assembly and discussed on matters deemed necessary; as it was understood that an objection was raised against the decision to uphold the ruling and that the documents in the case file were examined:
Decision:
1- All of the defendants’ objections must be rejected based on the documents in the case file, the evidence upon which the decision is based, the necessary legal grounds, and, in particular, the deficiency in the evaluation of the evidence.
2- Regarding the plaintiff’s attorney’s objection:
The case concerns a claim for compensatory and punitive damages. T he plaintiff purchased a brand-new vehicle from the defendant, and it was decided that the vehicle would be replaced with a new one free of charge due to a manufacturing defect. The Supreme Court noted that the case was filed between July 9, 2001, and July 25, 2003, and that the vehicle was delivered to the defendant, and that during this period, the vehicle was stored in a closed garage, and that expenses totaling 7,087,576,745 TL were incurred, including garage fees, insurance costs, motor vehicle tax, and traffic license fees.
Additionally, the plaintiff was unable to use the vehicle for approximately 2.5 years, suffered emotional distress, and incurred non-pecuniary damages. The plaintiff is seeking a total of 3,000,000,000 TL, including non-pecuniary damages. The plaintiff has filed a lawsuit requesting a ruling ordering the defendant to pay 10,087,576,745 TL in compensation, including interest, and to waive any right to claim additional amounts.
.
T he defendants objected to the decision dismissing the case, arguing that the plaintiff had parked the vehicle on the ground floor of a building under construction, had not paid any fees, that a vehicle not driven on public roads did not require insurance, and that taxes could not be claimed. The Court’s decision partially granting the claim was overturned by the Special Chamber for the reasons stated above.
T he court noted that the total expenses of 7,087,576,745 TL, including garage fees, insurance costs, motor vehicle tax, and traffic license fees for the vehicle in question, were the expenses claimed by the plaintiff’s attorney at the hearing on October 31, 2008, and further stated that that the claim that the vehicle was unusable due to being out of service for approximately 78 days was unfounded, that the plaintiff had submitted receipts and documents, that the total of vehicle insurance, insurance, license fees,
and motor vehicle tax amounted to 3,391 TL, and that an additional payment of 400 UAH was required. In the previous decision, an objection was raised on the grounds that, along with the acceptance of the garage fee, a total of 3,791.00 YTL in material damages should be accepted; the claim for moral damages in the event of a vehicle replacement was rejected, and a final ruling was issued in this regard; the conditions for the claim for moral damages were not determined.
.
As stated in Article 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “the judge may not consider anything beyond the claim or the claim of another party.” A s also stated in Article 75/1 of the same Code, “except for exceptions provided by law, the judge may not consider what one of the parties has not stated or the grounds of the claim, and may not render a decision even in situations where such grounds could be recalled.”
As can be seen from this clear provision of the law, the judge is bound by the claims and defenses of both parties and cannot render a decision beyond the scope of the claim or any other party’s arguments.
In a concrete example, the costs of the vehicle in question were claimed in the individual complaint as a total of 7,087,576,745 TL, including garage fees, insurance costs, motor vehicle tax, and traffic license fees.
At the hearing on October 31, 2008, the plaintiff’s attorney explicitly stated that there were no claims or allegations regarding compensation for damages arising from the period during which the vehicle was unusable due to being out of service for 78 days. The Local Court, taking this request into account, decided to partially grant the case.
Therefore, it is understood that the court’s decision was rendered in accordance with Articles 74 and 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HUMK), without exceeding the scope of the claim. Under these circumstances, the appeal decision, which is in compliance with both procedure and law, must be affirmed.
Conclusion:
1- For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, all objections raised by the defendant’s attorneys are dismissed, and the appeal costs are to be refunded upon request,
2- For the reasons explained in paragraph (2) above, since the required filing fee was collected in advance and no further fee is required, it was decided by unanimous vote on June 3, 2009, to approve the objection decision.