SUPREME COURT 17. law office
2016/15663 E.
2017/7899 K.
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the compensation case between the parties; The file was examined and considered necessary upon the appeal of the decision on the rejection of the case for reasons written in the decision by the deputy plaintiff within the period of the decision made by the Dectiff:
-DECISION-
Deputy plaintiff; due to the fact that his client is over 90% disabled, he insured his vehicle with license plates, which he bought free of excise duty, with a 10…4 casco policy to the defendant company, on 05/09/2015, when this vehicle was under the dispatch and management of a person named … who follows the client’s business, it was damaged by a unilateral traffic accident on the highway on 05/09/2015, stating that the claim and lawsuit rights related to the excess are reserved, he requested that the defendant company decide to collect a total of 2,500.00 TL, including 1,500.00 TL as compensation for material damage caused to his client’s vehicle and 1,000.00 TL as part of the loss of value caused to the vehicle, together with advance interest from the date of the accident.
The defendant’s attorney defended the rejection of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case according to the claim, the defense and the evidence collected; the verdict was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.
According to the information and documents contained in the file, there is no procedural and legal aspect in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the grounds of the court’s decision, it was unanimously decided on 19/09/2017 to APPROVE the provision found in accordance with the procedure and law by rejecting all appeals that were not considered on the spot by the plaintiff’s attorney and to receive the remaining approval fee of $ 2.20, which is written below, from the appellant.
