Decision Regarding The Court’s Decision On The Necessity Of Awarding Interest From The Date Of The Lawsuit Only For The Increased Part Of The Price
T.C. JUDICIARY
17th Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/5641
Decision 2016/7179
Date of Decision: 13.06.2016
INDEMNITY LAWSUIT – THE COURT SHOULD ONLY AWARD INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE LAWSUIT FOR THE PART OF THE PRICE INCREASE – AFFIRMATION OF THE JUDGMENT WITH CORRECTION
SUMMARY: In the concrete case, no interest was demanded in the lawsuit petition regarding the pecuniary compensation of … TL, legal interest was demanded from the date of the lawsuit for … TL, which is the part of the price increased with the petition for increase in the price dated …; the court ruled legal interest from the date of the lawsuit for the entire amount of … TL. It is not correct to decide more than the demand contrary to the article of the CCP. In this case; while the court should only award interest from the date of the lawsuit for the increased amount of … TL, it is not correct to award interest from the date of the lawsuit for the entire amount of … TL, including … TL, which is the first amount sued and for which no interest is demanded, and although it is a reason for reversal; since the correction of this mistake does not require the repetition of the trial, the judgment should be approved by correcting it in accordance with the article of the HUMK by referring to the article of the HMK.
(6100 S. K. art. 26)
Case: At the end of the trial of the compensation lawsuit between the parties; upon the appeal of the judgment on the acceptance of the lawsuit for the reasons written in the decision by the attorneys of the defendants within the time limit, the file was examined and considered accordingly:
The plaintiff’s attorney, by showing the value of 1.000 TL as the basis of the fee, declared that the vehicle belonging to his client was hit by the vehicle owned and driven by the defendants with primary fault, and requested the collection of the loss of value without prejudice to his rights regarding the excess, and by increasing his claim to 3.010,00 TL with the petition for amendment, he requested the acceptance of the lawsuit and the collection of the amended part from the defendants with legal interest to be processed from the date of the lawsuit.
The court, according to the collected evidence and the adopted expert report, accepted the lawsuit and decided to accept the lawsuit and to collect the financial compensation of 3.010,00 TL from the defendants jointly and severally with the legal interest to be accrued from the date of the lawsuit and to pay it to the plaintiff; the judgment was appealed by the attorney of the defendants.
1-According to the information and documents in the file, the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied on in the justification of the court decision, and especially the fact that there is no irregularity in the calculation of the financial compensation stated in the expert expert report prepared in accordance with the occurrence, it was necessary to decide to reject the other objections of the defendants’ counsel, which were not deemed appropriate.
2- The case is related to the claim for pecuniary compensation arising from a traffic accident.
In the concrete case, no interest was demanded in the petition for 1.000 TL pecuniary compensation, legal interest was demanded from the date of the lawsuit for the increased amount of 2.010 TL with the petition for price increase dated 03.09.2013; the court has ruled legal interest from the date of the lawsuit for the entire amount of 3.010,00 TL. Contrary to Article 26 of the CCP No. 6100, it is not correct to decide more than the demand. In this case; while the court should only award interest from the date of the lawsuit for the increased amount of TL 2.010,00, as written, the entire amount of TL 3.010,00, including TL 1.000,00, which is the first amount sued and for which no interest is demanded. 010.00 TL for the entire amount of TL 1.000,00, which is the first amount sued, is not correct and is a reason for reversal; however, since the correction of this mistake does not require the repetition of the trial, it is necessary to approve the judgment by correcting it in accordance with Article 438/7 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 by virtue of the provisional Article 3/2 of the CCP No. 6100.
Conclusion For the reasons explained in subparagraph (1) above, the other appellate objections of the defendants’ counsel are rejected; for the reasons explained in subparagraph (2) above, the appellate objections of the defendants’ counsel are accepted and subparagraph 1 of the paragraph 1 of the judgment is amended as follows: “With the acceptance of the lawsuit; 2. 010 TL of the 3.010,00 TL pecuniary damages together with the legal interest to be accrued from the date of the lawsuit to be collected jointly and severally from the defendants and paid to the plaintiff,” and the judgment was approved as amended, unanimously on 13.06.2016.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.