TC SUPREME
17.Law Office
Main: 2017/751
The Verdict: 2018/1274
Decision Date: 22.02.2018
LOSS OF VALUE DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT – DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LOSS OF VEHICLE VALUE MUST BE DETERMINED DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FAIR VALUE ON THE PRE-ACCIDENT Decrepit USED CAR MARKET AND THE FAIR VALUE AFTER THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND WAS REPAIRED SUMMARY
The case relates to a loss of value claim arising as a result of a traffic accident. The model, brand, characteristics, damages, repairs and mileage of the vehicle in the event history, age, prosecution’s claims, defendant’s defense and determination of the vehicle undamaged before the accident and the entire file scope at the fair price on the date of the accident were evaluated second-hand, elimination of disputes that may arise in determining the damage in terms of eliminating the difference between the subsequent second-hand market value and Decapitation,
detailed after evaluating all the evidence in the file, although it is necessary to obtain a new report as a result of evaluating all the evidence contained in the file by obtaining a reasoned and open-for-review report, to obtain a report suitable for inspection and sentencing, and to decide according to the conclusion to be reached, it was not considered correct to establish a written judgment.
(6100 pages. K. m. 266) (1136 PK m. 168)
At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties, the file was examined and deemed necessary as a result of the appeal examination conducted by the plaintiff’s attorney during the Decisional period for partial acceptance of the case. The reasons written in the decision are as follows:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney; In case of damage to the vehicle carrying the license plate value of his client in a traffic accident on 16/09/2013, 75% of the defective, the driver’s license plate … ‘s workmanship of the opposite party was found to be 25% defective, no violation of the rules was committed by the client, damage was determined by the client to the vehicle and requested that a decision be made to collect the defendant’s receivable along with legal interest of 500.00 TL from the date of the incident, in order to reserve the rights over the excess.
The defendant … has defended the dismissal of the case. According to the evidence collected by the court; According to the claim, defense and accepted expert report; … it was decided to dismiss the case by the defendant …, to give compensation in the amount of 2,520.00 TL to the plaintiff by taking the legal interest from the defendant … together with the defendant … from 16/09/2013; the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff.
1-
According to the articles contained in the file, considering the grounds on which the decision was based and the reasons that should have been requested, since there was no error in evidence discretion, it was necessary to decide to reject the plaintiff’s attorney’s other appeals requests that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph and are not considered in place.
2-
The case relates to the claim for loss of value caused as a result of a traffic accident. In the expert report based on the court decision, the determination of the loss of value of our apartment was taken as a basis, and the vehicle was not damaged at the time of the accident. 2.2. the hand was repaired at market value after the accident. the difference between the market value of the hand and the Decontamination was provided without meeting the criteria.
A judgment cannot be made based on the report of the determination of the loss of value by the method specified in the expert report. In this case, the court evaluates the model, brand, characteristics, damages, repairs and mileage of the vehicle in the event history, age, prosecution’s claims, defendant’s defense and determination of the vehicle undamaged before the accident and at the fair price on the date of the accident, eliminating the difference between the subsequent second-hand market value and depreciation, eliminating any disputes that may arise in determining the damage in detail, obtaining a reasoned and auditable new report.
The court considers that the vehicle was undamaged before the accident and the full file coverage, and determines the fair value on the date of the accident, eliminating the difference between the subsequent second-hand market value and Decapitation, eliminating any discrepancies that may arise in determining the damage in detail, obtaining a new reasoned and auditable report, after that, while all the evidence in the file should be evaluated together and a report in accordance with the audit and the judgment should be obtained and a decision should be made according to the result to be reached, it was not considered correct to establish a verdict in writing.
3-
The 13th of the AAUT in force on the date of the decision. its substance. According to the article “(1) Legal Aid, in which the tariff shown in the second paragraph of the second part of the subject can be evaluated as money or money equivalent, the Legal Aid attorney fee, provided that the fee tariff considered by the court of first instance in the second part is not included in the second paragraph of article 7, is linked to the provision that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article and the last paragraph of article 9, the provisions of the 10th paragraph will be determined in accordance with the third section of the tariff, without prejudice to the provisions.(2) However, the agreed fee may not exceed the accepted or rejected amount.
“In a concrete case, the portion that is rejected in terms of … represented by the surrogate is $ 500.00. COMMITMENT 13/2. According to the article, while a power of attorney fee of 500.00 TL should be ruled, a power of attorney fee of 1.800.00 TL has not been ruled.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 22/02/2018 to reject the plaintiff’s attorney’s other objections for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the decision by accepting the plaintiff’s attorney’s objections for the reasons explained in paragraphs (2) and (3), and to refund the advance fee to the objecting plaintiff if requested.