Sample Court Of Cassation Decision On Cooperatives
T.C. JUDICIARY
11th Civil Chamber
Basis: 2003/13739
Decision: 2004/8533
Date of Decision: 20.09.2004
Case: In the case between the parties, the Supreme Court of Appeals has been requested to review the decision dated 26.06.2003 and numbered 2002/98-2003/107 given by Şereflikoçhisar Civil Court of First Instance No. 2 and dated 26.06.2003 by the plaintiff’s attorney and the attorneys of the defendant cooperative and some of the defendants, and it has been understood that the petition for appeal has been submitted within the time limit, and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge Ata Durak for the case file has been listened to and the petitions, hearing minutes and all documents in the file have been read and examined, the matter has been discussed and considered:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that in order for the defendant cooperative to receive loans from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the defendant cooperative had to insure the cattle it purchased to distribute to its members for a period of one year in accordance with Article 3 of the cooperative agreement and Article 8 of the shareholders’ agreement, and that the defendant cooperative and the beneficiaries applied to his client, who is an insurance agent, for this purpose and took out insurance, Upon his client’s notification of this situation, he claimed that Z Bank Şereflikoçhisar Branch paid the loans to the cooperative, the defendants refrained from paying the insurance premium debts despite this, and that the enforcement proceedings initiated in this regard were stopped as a result of the defendants’ unfair objection, and demanded and sued for the cancellation of the objections of the defendants and the collection of 40% execution-denial compensation from the defendants.
The defendant cooperative and some of the defendants’ attorneys argued that no insurance contract was signed between their client and the plaintiff and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit and also requested and sued for the collection of 40% bad faith compensation from the plaintiff.
The court, based on the evidence collected, decided to dismiss the claim for bad faith compensation of the plaintiff and the defendant on the grounds that there was no written document stating that an insurance contract was concluded between the parties and that the conditions for bad faith compensation were not met.
The decision was appealed by the counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant cooperative and some of the defendants.
1- According to the information and documents in the case file, and the fact that there is nothing contrary to the procedure and law in the discussion and evaluation of the evidence relied on in the reasoning of the court decision, it is necessary to decide to reject all the appellate objections of the counsel for the appellant defendants.
2- As for the appellate objections of the plaintiff’s attorney; from the examination of the information and documents in the file, Article 11/h of the Regulation on State Aid to Investment Activities of Agricultural Cooperatives published in the Official Gazette dated 30.04.1990, the provisions of the protocol signed between T.C. Z. Bank and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the provisions of the protocol signed between the said bank dated 31. 08.1999 dated and 5797 numbered general letter of the aforementioned bank, Article 3 of the cooperative agreement and Article 8 of the shareholders’ agreement, the insurance condition must be fulfilled in order to pay for the animals purchased by the defendants, and the General Directorate of B Sigorta A. Ş., of which the plaintiff is an agent. Ş., of which the plaintiff is an agent, notified the Şereflikoçhisar Branch Directorate of T.C. Z. Bank that the cows belonging to the defendants were covered by the insurance, the said bank made a payment to the defendants, the plaintiff agent issued separate policies for the benefit of the defendants and the insurance coverage started.
Pursuant to Article 1263 of the TCC, insurance contracts are not formal contracts. Therefore, insurance policies are not a condition of validity of the contract, but only a means of proof showing the rights and obligations of the parties. As a means of proof, many of the documents described above are available in the file and the defendants obtained loans based on these documents. In addition, it is contrary to the ordinary course of life that the plaintiff issued a policy without the application of the defendants. In the face of this situation, while the court should determine the amount of the receivable that the plaintiff can claim by accepting that a valid insurance contract has been established between the parties and decide accordingly, it was not correct to make a written judgment and required a reversal.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained in subparagraph (1) above, all the appellate objections of the counsel for the appellant defendants are rejected, for the reasons explained in subparagraph (2) above, the appellate objections of the counsel for the plaintiff are accepted and the judgment is hereby VACATED in favor of the plaintiff, and the balance 2. 220.000.-lira appeal judgment fee to be collected from the appellant defendant cooperative and some of the defendants, and the prepaid appeal fee to be returned to the appellant upon request, it was unanimously decided on 20.09.2004