T.R.
SUPREME COURT
- LAW OFFICE
Article No: 2012/10984 Decision No: 2014/2469 K. Date: 13.2.2014
In the case heard between the parties, it was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney to examine the decision with a hearing, dated 08/12/2011 and numbered 2007/4-2011/481, given by the Antalya 1st Commercial Court of First Instance. The attorney of the defendant, who was understood and present, Atty. M.O. After being heard, due to the intensity of the hearing works and the shortness of time, the examination and decision of the case was postponed. After listening to the report prepared by the Investigation Judge and reading and examining the petition, pleadings, hearing minutes and all documents in the file, the necessity of the job was discussed and considered:
The attorney of the plaintiff, the company or A. Emeklilik A. S. Alleging that he had to make deposits via online transfer to one of the bank accounts registered in his name, that although his client fulfilled his obligation, the defendant did not fulfill his obligation and did not audit his agent, did not issue a policy or not pay the premium amount deposited, and objected unfairly against the execution proceeding, demanded and sued for the cancellation of the defendant’s objection to the proceeding and the continuation of the proceedings and the execution denial indemnity.
The defendant’s attorney claims that there is no contract made between the plaintiff and his client, and that there is no application form containing a money paid to the client company and an insurance request for the purpose of making an insurance policy by the plaintiff, that the money deposited by the plaintiff in the agency EB account has nothing to do with the client company, and that it was paid to the agency. arguing that it could not be proved that the money collected was paid on the basis of the insurance policy, and requested the dismissal of the case.
According to the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and the entire file, the court decided that the individual pension intermediary was not allowed to enter under any circumstances, according to the 19th article of the Regulation on Private Pension Intermediaries, which was in effect at the date of the payment subject to the case, and in the 23rd article of the Regulation No. It is regulated that the agency cannot make collections under dues, contributions or similar names, it is also stated in the agency agreement made between the defendant and his agent that the agency does not have such authority, in the event subject to the case, the said contract could not be established because the money deposited in the agency account was not transferred to the defendant insurance company account, therefore the agency’s unauthorized It was concluded that the defendant was not responsible for the refund of the money he had received, and the case was dismissed. The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision. The case concerns the request for the collection of the premium payment made to the agency from the defendant insurance company. he wanted restitution.
There is no evidence in the file that the money sent to the agency account of Emrullah Bayır, who was acting as the agent of the defendant on the date of the payments subject to the lawsuit, was sent for any purpose other than paying premiums, and the payment made to the agent will be made for the purpose of establishing an insurance relationship according to the ordinary course of life. In the concrete case, the plaintiff paid a total of 30,079,65 TL to the account of the non-litigation agency. In the 1st article of the Agency Agreement between the defendant and the non-litigation agency, regarding the “Agency and Responsibilities of the Agency”, the agency’s activity It is stated that he is authorized to work with a power of attorney, to receive insurance offers, to collect premium advances in relation to the said proposals in the Life and Personal Accident Insurance branches, which is the subject of the article. In other life branch insurances subject to profit share, the premium advances (money money) collected from the insured are transferred to the company or A. Emeklilik A.Ş. It has been regulated that he has to deposit by online transfer to one of the bank accounts registered in his name. In this case, it cannot be proven that the out-of-court agency is authorized to collect premium advances, that the payment made by the plaintiff was made for a purpose other than the premium payment made for the purpose of establishing the insurance relationship, and the fact that the collected money is not transferred to the defendant company is an internal relationship between the agent and the defendant company.
Since it is not possible for the plaintiff to claim this matter against the plaintiff, who has taken action by trusting the authorized agent of the defendant insurance company, it was necessary to decide on the responsibility of the defendant insurance company for the payment made to the agent, but it was not considered correct to reject the case with a written reason, and the decision had to be reversed for the benefit of the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 13.02.2014 that the appellant’s attorney’s objections be accepted and the decision was OVERFINED for the benefit of the plaintiff, and that the appeal fee paid be returned to the appellant upon request.