There Is No Dispute That The Deceased Was An Insured Employee At The Defendant’s Workplace, But He Did Not Meet The Conditions For Traveling To The Province – Decision That The Deceased Went To The Province For His Defendant’s Workplace And Died Due To An Accident
T.C. JUDICIARY
21st Civil Chamber
Main: 2015/18158
Decision: 2016/9853
Date of Decision: 14.06.2016
DETERMINATION CASE – ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DECEASED WORKED AS AN INSURED EMPLOYEE AT THE DEFENDANT WORKPLACE, HE DID NOT MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR TRAVELING TO THE PROVINCE – THE DECEASED TRAVELED FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BUSINESS AND DIED DUE TO AN ACCIDENT – JUDGMENT REVERSED
SUMMARY: In the concrete case; although there is no dispute that the deceased worked as an insured employee at the defendant’s workplace, since it is understood that the reason and purpose of going to the province did not meet the conditions listed, the deceased went for his own personal business and died in an accident during this time, it was inappropriate for the court to decide to accept the lawsuit instead of deciding to reject it. The court’s decision without taking these material and legal facts into consideration is contrary to the procedure and the law and is a reason for reversal.
(Article 11, 13 of 506 S. Code)
Case and Decision: The plaintiff’s murisi requested a decision to determine that the accident he had while working at the workplace belonging to the defendants’ employers was an occupational accident.
The court decided to accept the request as stated in the judgment.
Upon the appeal of the judgment by the defendants, the representative of the Institution and …, it was understood that the request for appeal was in due time and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge … and the papers in the file were read, the matter was considered and the following decision was determined.
The lawsuit is related to the claim for the determination of the traffic accident that the plaintiff’s deceased wife had on 06.03.2011 as an occupational accident.
The court decided to accept the lawsuit.
From the records and documents in the file; on 06.03.2011, the vehicle in which the deceased was traveling had an accident, he was driving the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle, the defendant Institution inspector’s report dated 12.10. 2011 dated report of the defendant Institution’s inspector; that there was no dispute that the deceased was working at the rehabilitation center on the date of the incident, but that the deceased’s departure was not related to his work and workplace, that he went for purely private reasons, and therefore the incident was not an occupational accident, in his statement to the defendant Institution’s inspector; that the deceased was an unofficial partner of the defendant school, but he appeared to be working as an insured employee, that the deceased told him that he had to pay his debts in order to take over the shares, that for this reason, he thought of buying a tractor from Antalya on credit and selling it and paying the debts with the money,
Such lawsuits for the determination of occupational accident arise from Article 11 of the Law No. 506 (Article 13 of the Law No. 5510). According to the aforementioned article, an occupational accident is an event that causes the insured to be physically or mentally impaired immediately or later, a) while the insured is at the workplace, b) due to the work being carried out by the employer, c) during the time the insured is absent from his/her main job due to being sent to another place by the employer on duty, d) during the collective transportation of the insured to and from the workplace by a vehicle provided by the employer. In order for an injurious insurance event to be considered as an occupational accident, 1) the person exposed to the insurance event must be insured, 2) the insurance event must occur in one of the limited cases and situations specified in the article. In other words, in order for an insurance event to be considered as an occupational accident, two conditions must be fulfilled together and there is no specially determined method of proof for the determination of occupational accident cases. These cases can be proved by any kind of evidence.
In the concrete case; although there is no dispute that the deceased worked as an insured employee at the defendant’s workplace, since it is understood that the reason and purpose of going to the province did not meet the above-mentioned conditions, the deceased went for his own personal business and died during the accident, it was inappropriate for the court to decide to accept the case instead of deciding to reject it.
The court’s decision as written without taking these material and legal facts into consideration is contrary to the procedure and the law and is a reason for reversal.
Therefore, the appellate objections of the appellant defendants in this respect should be accepted and the judgment should be reversed.
Conclusion It was unanimously decided on 14.06.2016 to overturn the judgment for the reasons explained above and to refund the appeal fee to the defendants upon request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.