TC
SUPREME
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Case No.: 2013/2031 Decision No.: 2014/6091 Date of Decision: March 28, 2014
In the civil case No. 2008/105 of Tunceli, dated January 16, 2012 -2012/18, in the civil case No. 2008/105 of Tunceli, due to the defendant’s failure to appear on the subsequent hearing date, and given the intensity of the proceedings and time constraints, the matter was discussed and decided upon following the hearing of the report prepared by the examining judge and the re-reading and review of the petition, documents, hearing transcripts, and all documents in the file.
The plaintiffs’ attorney represents the son and brother of their client, TDin.
.
On December 26, 2006, the defendant, HY, lost his life in a single-vehicle accident that occurred while he was a passenger in a vehicle used for intercity passenger transportation, which was being operated without the necessary permits from the relevant authorities. The defendant company was the operator of the vehicle in question. This matter was raised as a claim for damages in Case No. 2007/115 of the Elazığ High Criminal Court. The plaintiffs’ claims for damages, starting at 1,000 pounds for each plaintiff, were set forth in their statement of claim, subject to the reservation of the right to claim additional amounts.
The total compensation of 38,000 rubles sought by the plaintiffs in their notice of claim—and demanded jointly and severally from the defendants—consists of 8,000 rubles in compensatory damages and 30,000 rubles in punitive damages. In addition, claims were made for $10,145.65 in material damages and $3,750 in moral damages, to accrue from the date of the incident.
Defendant HY and his attorney argued that it was incorrect to attribute full fault to their client.
The defendant company’s attorney argued that the defendant HU had no direct or indirect commercial relationship with the company as a vehicle customer during the dispatch and management process, and that in the criminal case file regarding the vehicle mentioned in the FSin, on the ticket, etc., there was no title, emblem, or similar element that could link the client to the company, and that the ticket presented was not related to the client, among other grounds, and argued that the case should be dismissed.
.
Based on the court’s allegations, the defense expert report, and the scope of the entire case file, as well as the expert reports obtained in Case No. 2008/136-529 of the Elazığ 1st High Criminal Court and the report prepared by the Traffic Expertise Department of the Forensic Medicine Institute, Defendant H. was found to be entirely at fault and sentenced; the defendant’s company attorney argued that there were no commercial ties between the attorney and the client and that the attorney did not hold the title of “operator”; although Defendant H.’s name appeared on the company’s vehicle registration,
the vehicle in question did not belong to the plaintiff; In the statement of prosecution witness AAY, it was noted that the defendant H.’s vehicle was used for passenger transportation between Turkey and Turkey under the company he operated in Elazığ and Tunceli; the vehicle was registered in the company’s name; the defendant was part of the passenger transportation company; and the phone numbers listed belonged to the company. The defendant stated that, as indicated on the ticket receipts, he provided transportation services to ensure the continuity of the business and that the company received a commission.
According to the complainants’ statements, he said, “On the day of the incident, I went to the Hozot garage, where a young man there issued me a ticket and showed me the vehicle that was taking me there.” Th e defendant said, “When I went to a travel agency called Dersim, a young person there issued me a ticket and showed me the vehicle I was to take.” The defendant stated that he provided intercity transportation services as part of the company—in which he himself was a driver—and that the court ruled that 3,750.00 TL, plus statutory interest accruing from the date of the incident, be collected jointly and severally from the defendants.
The parties’ representatives objected to the decision.
1- The plaintiffs’ attorney objected to the court’s decision; however, it could not be determined whether this objection was recorded in the objection register, and a receipt confirming payment of the objection fee was not found in the case file.
The procedure for filing an appeal is outlined in Article 434 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Humk).
Accordingly, the appeal petition must be entered into the appeal register, and the appeal fee must be paid. If the plaintiffs’ attorney files an appeal without completing these procedures, the appeal cannot be reviewed; therefore, a decision must be made as to whether the appeal should be dismissed.
2-Based on the information and documents in the case file, there is no procedural or legal irregularity in the discussion and evaluation of the mentally ill individuals as set forth in the court’s reasoning; the defendant’s representative is the defendant HY, and the court was required to rule that all objections not raised in the presence of the guardian be dismissed.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the defendant’s attorney, and for the reasons explained in paragraph (2) above, the appellant has paid the following balance; the appellant’s appeal fee is 935.30 TL. Dersim Ltd., the defendant who filed the appeal to recover the 956.45 TL filing fee, has paid the balance set forth below.
A unanimous decision was made on March 28, 2014.