How Is Compensation For Loss Of Value Due To A Traffic Accident Determined?
Supreme Court of Appeals of the Republic of Turkey
17th Civil Chamber
Case No.: 2017/751
Decision No.: 2018/1274
Date of Decision: 02/22/2018
LOSS OF VALUE DUE TO TRAFFIC ACCIDENT – DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF VALUE DAMAGES BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRE-ACCIDENT MARKET VALUE OF THE UNDAMAGED VEHICLE AND ITS MARKET VALUE AFTER THE ACCIDENT AND REPAIRS
SUMMARY: The lawsuit concerns a claim for loss of value resulting from a traffic accident. The court will evaluate the vehicle’s model, brand, features, damage, repair work performed, mileage, age at the time of the incident, the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant’s defenses, and the entire case file, the loss of value shall be determined based on the difference between the vehicle’s pre-accident damage-free second-hand market value and its second-hand market value after the accident and repairs. obtaining a new detailed, reasoned, and auditable report to resolve any potential contradictions, then evaluating all evidence in the file together, obtaining a report suitable for audit and ruling, and making a decision based on the conclusion reached, rather than ruling in writing, is not considered correct.
(6100 S. K. m. 266) (1136 S. K. m. 168)
At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit regarding the ruling given for the partial acceptance of the case for the reasons stated in the decision, the file was examined, and the necessary considerations were made:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the vehicle with license plate number … belonging to his client suffered a loss of value in the traffic accident that occurred on 09/16/2013, that … was 75% at fault in the incident, that the driver of the vehicle with license plate number … belonging to the opposing party was 25% at fault, but that his client did not violate any rules, and that the damage to his client’s vehicle should be assessed. was 25% at fault, but that his client did not violate any rules. He requested that the damage to his client’s vehicle be assessed and that the defendants be ordered to pay 500.00 TL, plus legal interest accruing from the date of the incident, with the right to claim additional damages reserved.
The defendant … defended the dismissal of the case. The court, based on the allegations, the defense, the evidence gathered, and the expert report adopted, dismissed the case against … and ruled that the defendant … should pay the plaintiff 2,520.00 TL in damages, plus legal interest accruing from 09/16/2013, to be collected from the defendant … The judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
1- Considering the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the compelling reasons, and since there is no inaccuracy in the assessment of the evidence, it is necessary to reject the plaintiff’s attorney’s other appeals for appeal, which are outside the scope of the following paragraph and are not deemed appropriate.
2- The case concerns a claim for loss of value resulting from a traffic accident. The expert report on which the ruling is based determined the loss of value of the vehicle without adhering to the criterion used by our Chamber to determine loss of value, which is the difference between the undamaged second-hand market value of the vehicle at the time of the accident and its second-hand market value after repair. A ruling cannot be made based on the report stating that the loss of value was determined using the method specified in the expert report. In this case, the court must evaluate the model, brand, features, damage, repair work performed, mileage, age at the time of the incident, the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant’s defenses, and the entire case file must be evaluated together to determine the loss of value based on the difference between the vehicle’s pre-accident damage-free second-hand market value and its second-hand market value after the accident and repairs. obtaining a new detailed, reasoned, and auditable report to resolve any potential contradictions, then evaluating all evidence in the file together, obtaining a report suitable for audit and ruling, and making a decision based on the conclusion reached, rather than ruling in writing, is not considered correct.
3- According to Article 13 of the AAÜT in force on the date of the decision, “(1) If the subject matter of the legal assistance listed in the second section of the second part of the tariff is money or can be evaluated in terms of money, the attorney’s fee shall not be less than the fixed fees specified in the second part of the tariff for the court where the case is heard (subject to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 7, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Article 9, and the last paragraph of Article 10) shall be determined in accordance with the third part of the Tariff. (2) However, the awarded fee cannot exceed the amount accepted or rejected. “In the specific case, since the rejected portion represented by the attorney was 500.00 TL, an attorney’s fee of 500.00 TL should have been awarded pursuant to Article 13/2 of the AAÜT, and it was not appropriate to award an attorney’s fee of 1,800.00 TL.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the plaintiff’s attorney’s other appeals are rejected, and for the reasons explained in paragraphs (2) and (3), the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals are accepted and the judgment is REVERSED. and the advance fee shall be returned to the appellant upon request. This decision was made unanimously on February 22, 2018.