Summary:
Even though they are the heirs of the deceased, third party beneficiaries in terms of insurance policy coverage will be able to request financial compensation from the insurance company.
At this point, the fault of the deceased vehicle driver or operator does not change the result.
T.R.
Supreme Court
- Law Office
Base No:2011/4489
Decision No: 2012/7609
K. Date: 11.6.2012
The attorney of the plaintiffs informed the defendant EGS Sigorta that he died in the accident that occurred due to the vehicle insured with the ZMSS policy and in which his client’s testator R was a passenger, and 3,500 TL for the plaintiff mother Türkan and 3,500 TL for the father Ali. TL. demanded and sued the collection of the compensation for lack of support from the defendant, together with the legal interest that will accrue from the date of the accident or the date of application, and increased the total demand to 18,309 TL for the mother and 18,309 TL for the father, through rehabilitation.
The defendant EGS Sigorta’s attorney demanded the dismissal of the lawsuit, stating that the deceased of the plaintiffs who died in the accident was the owner of the vehicle and that compensation could not be claimed.
By the court; According to the collected evidence and the expert report, on the grounds that the accident occurred while the deceased Rukiye was a passenger in the vehicle belonging to her, and she could not be considered a third person, the plaintiffs did not directly suffer any bodily harm due to the incident, and the Compulsory Liability Insurer was not responsible for the damage in the form of reflection. the case was dismissed; The ruling was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney.
The case is related to the claim for compensation for deprivation of support resulting from a traffic accident.
That the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit not as the sole heir of the deceased, but as the third person deprived of support, that the defect in the formation of the loss of support arising directly on the plaintiffs due to death will not be reflected on the plaintiffs; therefore, if the driver or operator of the vehicle is at fault, it will not affect the plaintiffs who are deprived of their support; According to the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 and the General Conditions of the Highways Motor Vehicles Compulsory Liability Insurance, the defendant insurance company, the compulsory liability insurer of the vehicle, guarantees the damages caused by the operator to third parties, and even if the operator or the driver is at fault, the plaintiffs who are deprived of support also suffer losses. Since it is the third person who sees it, the court must accept that the defendant insurance company will be responsible. HGK.15.06.2011 day and 2011/17-142 basis 411 decision, HGK. The resolutions of 22.02.2012 dated 2011/17-782 and numbered 2012/92 are in this direction.
In that case, while it is necessary to make a decision according to the result by evaluating the evidence collected by the court together, it is not correct to decide to reject the case with written justifications.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 11.06.2012 that the appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney be accepted and the judgment be OVERFINED and the advance fee be returned to the appellants upon request.