T.C.
\n\u0130ZM\u0130R B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130
\n20. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130
\nE. 2022\/856
\nK. 2024\/1769
\nT. 4.12.2024<\/p>\n
YABANCI PLAKALI ARACIN KARI\u015eTI\u011eI MADD\u0130 HASARLI TRAF\u0130K KAZASI NEDEN\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT ( Daval\u0131 Sigorta \u015eirketinin Sorumlulu\u011funun Poli\u00e7e Limiti \u0130le S\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu ve Poli\u00e7enin TL Olarak D\u00fczenlendi\u011fi G\u00f6zetildi\u011finde Mahkemece Kurulan H\u00fck\u00fcmde Bakiye Poli\u00e7e Limitinin Yaz\u0131lmayarak Eksik B\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n Do\u011fru Olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\/Zira Kaza Tarihi \u0130tibariyle ZMM Poli\u00e7e Limiti 41.000 TL Olup Davadan \u00d6nce Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Olan 5.903,66 TL K\u0131smi \u00d6deme D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde Sigorta \u015eirketinin Bakiye Sorumlulu\u011funun Yaln\u0131zca 35.096,34 TL’ye Kadar Oldu\u011fu A\u00e7\u0131k Olup H\u00fckm\u00fcn Yabanc\u0131 Para Cinsinden Tesisi ve Fiili \u00d6deme Tarihindeki Kur Olarak TL Kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6denecek Olmas\u0131 Nedeniyle Daval\u0131 Taraf\u0131n Hak Kayb\u0131na Neden Olacak H\u00fckm\u00fcn D\u00fczeltilmesi Gere\u011fi )<\/p>\n
ZORUNLU MAL\u0130 SORUMLULUK S\u0130GORTASI KAPSAMINDA TAZM\u0130NAT VE POL\u0130\u00c7E L\u0130M\u0130T\u0130 ( Sigorta \u015eirketinin Sorumlulu\u011funun Poli\u00e7e Limiti ile S\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 Olmas\u0131 Gere\u011fi\/Yabanc\u0131 Plakal\u0131 Ara\u00e7 \u0130\u00e7in Tazminat\u0131n Yabanc\u0131 Para Cinsinden Belirlenebilece\u011fi Ancak Poli\u00e7e Limitinin TL Cinsinden Oldu\u011fu ve Sorumlulu\u011fun Buna G\u00f6re Hesaplanmas\u0131 Gerekti\u011fi)<\/p>\n
6098\/m.51<\/p>\n
\u00d6ZET: Dava, yabanc\u0131 plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi hasarl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 nedeniyle maddi tazminat istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 y\u00f6nler itibariyle daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc gerekmi\u015ftir. \u015e\u00f6yle ki; her ne kadar bilirki\u015fi raporundaki hesaplamada \u00f6denen tutar\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi suretiyle bakiye tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n belirlendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte ise de, daval\u0131 tarafta yaln\u0131zca sigorta \u015firketi yer almakta olup, daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011funun poli\u00e7e limiti ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve poli\u00e7enin TL olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, mahkemece kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcmde bakiye poli\u00e7e limitinin yaz\u0131lmayarak h\u00fckm\u00fcn bu \u015fekilde eksik b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Zira, kaza tarihi itibariyle ZMM poli\u00e7e limiti 41.000-TL olup, davadan \u00f6nce yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan 5.903,66-TL k\u0131smi \u00f6deme d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde, daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin bakiye sorumlulu\u011funun yaln\u0131zca 35.096,34-TL’ye kadar oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olup, h\u00fckm\u00fcn yabanc\u0131 para cinsinden tesisi ve fiili \u00f6deme tarihindeki kur olarak TL kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denecek olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n hak kayb\u0131na neden olacak mevcut h\u00fckm\u00fcn d\u00fczeltilmesi gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
DAVA : \u0130stinaf incelemesi i\u00e7in Dairemize g\u00f6nderilen \u0130zmir 7. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi’nin 2021\/259 Esas-2022\/54 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131n\u0131n incelemesi tamamlanm\u0131\u015f olmakla HMK’n\u0131n 353. ve 356. maddeleri gere\u011fince; dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine ve karar\u0131n niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re sonuca etkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan duru\u015fma yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmeden dosya \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda;<\/p>\n
GERE\u011e\u0130 G\u00d6R\u00dc\u015e\u00dcLD\u00dc:<\/p>\n
KARAR : DAVA:<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; 20\/08\/2020 tarihinde …’a ait … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n, m\u00fcvekkiline ait … yabanc\u0131 plakal\u0131 araca \u00e7arpmas\u0131 neticesinde maddi hasarl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131n\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin arac\u0131n\u0131n arka k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131ndan tahrip edildi\u011fini, kaza sonras\u0131 … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn olay yerinden ka\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin derhal olay yerinin foto\u011fraflar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekerek delilleri korudu\u011funu, kaza mahalline gelen trafik ekiplerinin de rapor tuttu\u011funu, kaza tespit tutana\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re kazada asli ve tek kusurlu taraf\u0131n … plakal\u0131 ara\u00e7 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc oldu\u011funun, di\u011fer s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn ise kusursuz oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fini, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n, kaza tarihinde ge\u00e7erli olan ZMMS poli\u00e7esi nedeniyle sigortal\u0131 ara\u00e7 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn tam ve asli kusuru ile sebebiyet verdi\u011fi kaza neticesinde olu\u015fan maddi zararlardan sorumlu oldu\u011funun izahtan vareste oldu\u011funu, kazadan sonra durumun daval\u0131 sigortal\u0131ya bildirildi\u011fini ve sigorta taraf\u0131ndan sigorta eksperi atand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, eksperin gerekli incelemeyi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin kazadan k\u0131sa bir zaman sonra arac\u0131 ile daimi ikamet etti\u011fi \u00fclkeye d\u00f6nmek zorunda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Almanya’ya d\u00f6nd\u00fckten sonra arac\u0131n\u0131, … isimli ekspertiz firmas\u0131na inceletti\u011fini ve d\u00fczenlenen 07\/09\/2020 tarihli onar\u0131m maliyet hesaplamas\u0131na g\u00f6re KDV dahil 7.446,75 Euro olarak hasar\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fini, t\u00fcm bu raporlama \u00fccretleri i\u00e7in m\u00fcvekkilinin 890,07 Euro \u00f6demede bulundu\u011funu, daval\u0131 \u015firket ile ileti\u015fime ge\u00e7ildi\u011fini, \u015firketin 03\/12\/2020 tarihinde sadece 5.903,66 TL tutar\u0131nda \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yap\u0131lan bu \u00f6demenin tazminat\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131lamaktan uzak oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n ger\u00e7ek zarar\u0131 \u00f6demek zorunda oldu\u011funu, hasar bedeline yans\u0131yacak KDV miktar\u0131n\u0131 da \u00f6demek zorunda oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin arac\u0131n\u0131n yabanc\u0131 plakal\u0131 olup m\u00fcvekkilinin ikametgah\u0131 da Almanya oldu\u011fundan ara\u00e7taki zarar\u0131n Alman rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferlerine g\u00f6re belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fini, nitekim Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131n\u0131n da bu y\u00f6nde oldu\u011funu, ekspertiz rapor \u00fccretinin de T\u00fcrkiye piyasas\u0131na g\u00f6re de\u011fil, arac\u0131n bulundu\u011fu \u00fclke piyasas\u0131na g\u00f6re belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin zarar\u0131n\u0131 gidermek i\u00e7in yabanc\u0131 para Euro \u00fczerinden harcama yapaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fini, bu durumda m\u00fcvekkilinin zarar\u0131n\u0131n tazmininin de Euro \u00fczerinden hesaplanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ve fiili \u00f6deme g\u00fcn\u00fcndeki kur \u00fczerinden tahsil edilmesi gerekti\u011fini, 6098 Say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’n\u0131n 99.maddesine g\u00f6re de yabanc\u0131 para \u00fczerinden do\u011fan borcun \u00f6deme g\u00fcn\u00fcndeki rayi\u00e7 bedeli \u00fczerinden \u00fclke paras\u0131yla da \u00f6denebilece\u011fini, nitekim Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131n\u0131n da bu y\u00f6nde oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin temerr\u00fcde d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, daval\u0131n\u0131n 03\/12\/2020 tarihinde \u00f6deme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bakiye alacaklar\u0131 i\u00e7in anla\u015fma sa\u011flanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek, fazlaya ili\u015fkin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla \u015fimdilik 100,00 Euro’nun teminat limitleri i\u00e7inde yabanc\u0131 para bak\u0131m\u0131ndan 3095 Say\u0131l\u0131 yasan\u0131n 4\/a maddesine g\u00f6re y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclecek de\u011fi\u015fken faiziyle birlikte ve fiili \u00f6deme tarihindeki Merkez Bankas\u0131 Efektif Sat\u0131\u015f Kuru kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 T\u00fcrk Liras\u0131 olarak tahsiline, \u00f6demi\u015f olduklar\u0131 ekspertiz rapor \u00fccretinin yarg\u0131lama giderlerinden say\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015f, \u0131slah ile istemin 4.111,61-Euro’ya \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
CEVAP:<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; kabul anlam\u0131na gelmemek kayd\u0131yla, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin sorumlulu\u011funun sigortal\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n kusuru ve bakiye poli\u00e7e limiti ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funu, teminat limitinin ise kaza tarihi itibariyle ara\u00e7 ba\u015f\u0131na 41.000,00 TL oldu\u011funu, t\u00fcm \u00f6demelerin poli\u00e7e teminat limitinden mahsup edilmesi gerekti\u011fini, davac\u0131 yana 03\/12\/2020 tarihinde 5.903,66 TL tazminat \u00f6dendi\u011fini, hesaplaman\u0131n, tamamen do\u011fru verilere g\u00f6re yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin poli\u00e7eden kaynaklanan t\u00fcm sorumlulu\u011funu yerine getirdi\u011fini, bu durumda, davan\u0131n do\u011frudan reddini, aksi halde, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan \u00f6demenin toplam tazminattan -\u00f6deme tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek faiziyle birlikte- mahsup edilmesini talep ettiklerini, de\u011fer kayb\u0131 hesab\u0131n\u0131n ZMMS genel \u015fartlar\u0131 nazara al\u0131narak tespit edilmesini talep ettiklerini, m\u00fckerrer \u00f6deme ve sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmenin engellenmesi i\u00e7in konu kaza nedeniyle sigortal\u0131 ve kasko sigortac\u0131s\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan zarar g\u00f6rene \u00f6deme yap\u0131l\u0131p yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun tespitini, poli\u00e7e teminat\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki ekspertiz masraf\u0131 talebine y\u00f6nelik ise; yokluklar\u0131nda tanzim ettirilen ekspertiz raporu i\u00e7in istenen tespit ve \u00e7eviri \u00fccret giderinin poli\u00e7e kapsam\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131lanabilecek bir mebla\u011f niteli\u011finde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fuzuli bir masrafa sebebiyet verebilecek nitelikteki tespit masraf\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkete y\u00fckletilmesinin 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’n\u0131n 31.maddesine de ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n tek tarafl\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenletip dosyaya sundu\u011fu tespit raporunun kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, eksper raporu i\u00e7in \u00f6denen \u00fccretin makul gider olarak de\u011ferlendirilemeyece\u011finin ortada oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015fen oranlarda faiz talebine de itiraz ettiklerini, ma\u011fdur ara\u00e7la m\u00fcvekkili \u015firket aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin ticari bir nitelik arz etmedi\u011fini ve tazminat talebinin de haks\u0131z fiilden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, uygulanacak faizin yasal faiz oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131 vekilinin de\u011fi\u015fen oranlarda faiz isteminin haks\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortada oldu\u011funu beyanla, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI:<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, “…T\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131 birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; daval\u0131 … A.\u015e’ ye Karayollar\u0131 Zorunlu Mali Sorumluluk Trafik Sigorta Poli\u00e7esi ile sigortal\u0131 maliki … olan … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n kaza yerini terk eden s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc idaresindeyken meydana gelen trafik kazas\u0131nda dikkatsiz, tedbirsiz ve kurallara ayk\u0131r\u0131 hareketleriyle kazaya 1. derecede etken davran\u0131\u015f sergilemi\u015f oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131ya ait … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc …’ \u0131n meydana gelen kazaya etken herhangi bir hatal\u0131 davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hasar\u0131n (par\u00e7a bedeli + i\u015f\u00e7ilik + KDV dahil) 7.446,75 Euro oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131 arac\u0131n\u0131n kaza tarihi itibariyle serbest piyasa ko\u015fullar\u0131na g\u00f6re 2.el piyasa rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferinin 11.000,00 Euro civar\u0131 oldu\u011fu, sovtaj de\u011ferinin 5.000,00 TL civar\u0131 oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131ya ait arac\u0131n onar\u0131m tutar\u0131 2.el piyasa rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferinin %68′ ne ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 do\u011frultusunda tamirinin ekonomik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, pert-total uygulamas\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekli oldu\u011fu ve ger\u00e7ek hasar miktar\u0131n\u0131n 6.000,00 Euro oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131ya … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n hasar\u0131 i\u00e7in 03.12.2020 tarihinde 5.903,66 TL (618,70 Euro) hasar tazminat\u0131 \u00f6denmi\u015f oldu\u011fundan davac\u0131n\u0131n bakiye hasar alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 5.381,30 Euro oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin ara\u00e7 ba\u015f\u0131na maddi 41.000.00-TL limitle sorumlu oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde, bu bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 4.730,31-Euro’dan \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lan 618,70-Euro bedelin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi neticesinde, sonu\u00e7 olarak; DAVANIN KABUL\u00dc \u0130LE, 4.111,61 Euro bakiye hasar bedeli maddi tazminat\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinden poli\u00e7e limitiyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131yla 09\/10\/2021 tarihinden itibaren 6098 Say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’ n\u0131n 99. maddesi gere\u011fi 3095 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanuni faiz ve temerr\u00fct faizi hakk\u0131nda kanunun 4\/a maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015fleyecek faiziyle birlikte fiili \u00f6deme tarihindeki TCMB efektif sat\u0131\u015f kuru TL kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya \u00f6denmesine…” \u015feklinde karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130ST\u0130NAF SEBEPLER\u0130:<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan, “…Eksik inceleme ile hukuka uygun olmayan h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funu, \u00f6ncelikle kabul edilen zarar\u0131n fahi\u015f bir mebla\u011f oldu\u011funu, onar\u0131ma ili\u015fkin bir fatura sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan belirlenen fahi\u015f zarar mebla\u011f\u0131na k\u00fcl halinde itiraz ettiklerini, poli\u00e7e teminat limiti ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, poli\u00e7e limitinin \u00e7ok \u00fczerinde h\u00fck\u00fcm kuruldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin sorumlu oldu\u011fu miktar\u0131n kaza tarihindeki bakiye poli\u00e7e teminat limiti olan (41.000,00 – 5.903,66=) 35.096,34 TL ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funun belirtilmedi\u011fini, yine h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131nda yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccreti tayinine ili\u015fkin b\u00f6l\u00fcmde teminat limiti oran\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccretinin t\u00fcm\u00fcnden sorumlu tutuldu\u011funu, 890,07 Euro kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 8.624,77 TL oldu\u011fu iddia olunan ekspertiz masraf\u0131n\u0131n poli\u00e7e kapsam\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131lanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hasar tespitinin T\u00fcrkiye’de ve T\u00fcrk Liras\u0131 \u00fczerinden ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilebilece\u011fini, fahi\u015f nitelikteki ekspertiz \u00fccretinin reddi yahut \u00fclke \u015fartlar\u0131nda makul olan k\u0131sm\u0131 kabul edilebilecekken tamam\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesinin haks\u0131z ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, \u00f6ncelikle davan\u0131n reddi, aksi halde as\u0131l alacak ve fer’ileri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin sorumlu oldu\u011fu bakiye teminat limiti belirtilerek buna g\u00f6re yeni bir h\u00fck\u00fcm olu\u015fturulmas\u0131n\u0131, masraf ve vekalet \u00fccretinin kar\u015f\u0131 yan \u00fczerinde b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etme mecburiyetlerinin do\u011fdu\u011funu, ZMMS poli\u00e7e teminat limitlerinin Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 nezdinde belirlenen T\u00fcrk Liras\u0131 teminatlar\u0131 oldu\u011funu, poli\u00e7e primlerinin de TL olarak tahsil edildi\u011fini, kald\u0131 ki, bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere yabanc\u0131 para \u00fczerinden s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n da s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin sorumlu oldu\u011fu miktar\u0131n bakiye poli\u00e7e teminat\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funa dair yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep ettiklerini, nitekim Yarg\u0131tay 11. HD’nin 2003\/1674 Esas-2003\/7184 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda da; ‘poli\u00e7edeki teminat miktar\u0131 ve para birimi dikkate al\u0131narak, sigorta tazminat\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmek gerekirken’ denilmekle sigorta \u015firketi aleyhine tazminata h\u00fckmedilirken TL cinsinden belirlenen poli\u00e7e limitinin esas al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereklili\u011fine vurgu yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, netice olarak, poli\u00e7e bakiye teminat limiti nazara al\u0131narak sigorta \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011funun belirlenmesi, buna oranla masraf, vekalet \u00fccreti ve ekspertiz \u00fccretinin de de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fini, istinafa konu karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131nda har\u00e7, yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccreti tayinine ili\u015fkin b\u00f6l\u00fcmde bu kalemler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin poli\u00e7e limitine oranla sorumlu oldu\u011fu teminat limiti oran\u0131nda h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccretinin t\u00fcm\u00fcnden sorumlu tutularak hatal\u0131 karar verildi\u011fini (Yarg\u0131tay 17. HD 2015\/6523 Esas-2017\/12248 Karar, Yarg\u0131tay 17. HD 2016\/6107 Esas-2018\/7206 Karar), ekspertiz \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmemesi halinde 25\/03\/2020 tarihli Resmi Gazete’de yay\u0131mlanan ve yay\u0131m tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren Sigorta Eksperi Atama Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi’nde De\u011fi\u015fiklik Yap\u0131lmas\u0131na Dair Y\u00f6netmelik kapsam\u0131nda ilgili y\u00f6netmeli\u011fe eklenen ekspertiz \u00fccret tarifesinin 2021 y\u0131l\u0131na ait g\u00fcncellenmi\u015f ilgili b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc sunduklar\u0131n\u0131, huzurdaki talep bak\u0131m\u0131ndan eksper \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi halinde mevzuata uygun bu tarifenin dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini…” beyanla, mahkeme karar\u0131 istinaf kanun yoluna getirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
DEL\u0130LLER\u0130N DE\u011eERLEND\u0130R\u0130LMES\u0130 VE GEREK\u00c7E:<\/p>\n
Dava, yabanc\u0131 plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi hasarl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 nedeniyle maddi tazminat istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fi, karara kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvuruldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
1-)Dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki bilgi ve belgelerin incelenmesinde; davac\u0131ya ait Almanya plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n sigortal\u0131s\u0131 ile kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi hasarl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 sonras\u0131nda Almanya’ya g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ve oradan eksper raporu al\u0131narak, akabinde zarar\u0131n tazmini i\u00e7in eldeki davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davadan \u00f6nce daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a poli\u00e7e kapsam\u0131nda 5.903,66-TL k\u0131smi \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2-)Mahkemece, bilirki\u015fi raporu al\u0131narak kusur ve zarar hesab\u0131 yapt\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, raporun denetime ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmaya elveri\u015fli oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a raporda belirlenen tutardan daha az bir miktar \u00fczerinden \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi sunuldu\u011fu ve mahkemece de taleple ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olup, daval\u0131 vekilinin hasar tutar\u0131n\u0131n fahi\u015f oldu\u011funa, eksper \u00fccretinin tarifeye g\u00f6re belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fine ve rapora y\u00f6nelik istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n esastan reddi gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3-)Bununla birlikte, karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 y\u00f6nler itibariyle daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc gerekmi\u015ftir. \u015e\u00f6yle ki; her ne kadar bilirki\u015fi raporundaki hesaplamada \u00f6denen tutar\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi suretiyle bakiye tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n belirlendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte ise de, daval\u0131 tarafta yaln\u0131zca sigorta \u015firketi yer almakta olup, daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011funun poli\u00e7e limiti ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve poli\u00e7enin TL olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, mahkemece kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcmde bakiye poli\u00e7e limitinin yaz\u0131lmayarak h\u00fckm\u00fcn bu \u015fekilde eksik b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Zira, kaza tarihi itibariyle ZMM poli\u00e7e limiti 41.000-TL olup, davadan \u00f6nce yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olan 5.903,66-TL k\u0131smi \u00f6deme d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde, daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinin bakiye sorumlulu\u011funun yaln\u0131zca 35.096,34-TL’ye kadar oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olup, h\u00fckm\u00fcn yabanc\u0131 para cinsinden tesisi ve fiili \u00f6deme tarihindeki kur olarak TL kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denecek olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n hak kayb\u0131na neden olacak mevcut h\u00fckm\u00fcn d\u00fczeltilmesi gerekmekle birlikte, bu husus yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmedi\u011finden Dairemizce HMK 353\/1-b-2.madde uyar\u0131nca h\u00fckm\u00fcn d\u00fczeltilmesine karar verilmi\u015f, yine, h\u00fck\u00fcmdeki yarg\u0131lama giderleri ve vekalet \u00fccretine dair k\u0131sm\u0131n da, daval\u0131n\u0131n bakiye poli\u00e7e limitine oranla sorumlu olaca\u011f\u0131 \u015fekilde d\u00fczeltilmesi gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4-) Ekspertiz masraf\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan; k\u0131sa kararda Euro cinsinden h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edildi\u011fi halde, gerek\u00e7eli kararda TL’ye \u00e7evrilerek yarg\u0131lama giderlerine eklenmi\u015f olup, bu husus \u00e7eli\u015fkili ve hatal\u0131d\u0131r. Bununla birlikte, mevcut h\u00fckm\u00fcn istinafa gelen daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n yarar\u0131na olmas\u0131 nedeniyle (gerek\u00e7eli karar ile 890,07-Euro kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 8.624,77-TL denildi\u011finden), aleyhe kald\u0131rma yap\u0131lmayarak, TL olarak h\u00fckmedilen tutar esas al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, ancak burada ele\u015ftiri olarak belirtilmesi gerekli g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, HMK 355. madde gere\u011fince istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen sebeplerle ve kamu d\u00fczenine ili\u015fkin hususlarla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan inceleme neticesinde; daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n HMK 353\/1-b-2. maddesi uyar\u0131nca k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle yerel mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131larak Dairemizce yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisine dair a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7 : Gerek\u00e7esi yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere;<\/p>\n
I-)Daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n KISMEN KABUL\u00dcNE; \u0130zmir 7. Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi’nin 2021\/259 Esas – 2022\/54 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n HMK’n\u0131n 353\/1-b-2. maddesi uyar\u0131nca KALDIRILMASINA, KALDIRILAN KARARIN YER\u0130NE GE\u00c7MEK \u00dcZERE;<\/p>\n
“1-DAVANIN KABUL\u00dc \u0130LE, 4.111,61 Euro bakiye hasar bedeli maddi tazminat\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 sigorta \u015firketinden (daval\u0131n\u0131n bakiye poli\u00e7e limiti olan 35.096,34 TL’yi a\u015fmamak kayd\u0131yla) 09\/10\/2021 tarihinden itibaren 6098 Say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’ n\u0131n 99. maddesi gere\u011fi 3095 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanuni Faiz ve Temerr\u00fct Faizi Hakk\u0131nda Kanun’un 4\/a maddesi uyar\u0131nca i\u015fleyecek faiziyle birlikte fiili \u00f6deme tarihindeki TCMB efektif sat\u0131\u015f kuru TL kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya \u00f6denmesine,<\/p>\n
2-)Karar tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan Har\u00e7lar Tarifesi gere\u011fince al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekli 2.397,43-TL har\u00e7tan pe\u015fin ve \u0131slah harc\u0131 olarak al\u0131nan 766,11-TL harc\u0131n mahsubu ile bakiye 1.631,32-TL harc\u0131n daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak Hazine’ye irat kayd\u0131na,<\/p>\n
3-)Karar tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi’nin 13\/2. maddesi gere\u011fince hesap ve takdir edilen 5.976,23-TL vekalet \u00fccretinin (sigorta \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011fu, h\u00fckmedilen tutar\u0131n yukar\u0131da belirtilen bakiye poli\u00e7e limitine oranlanmas\u0131 suretiyle olacak \u015fekilde) daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine,<\/p>\n
4-)Davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a yap\u0131lan 766,11-TL pe\u015fin ve \u0131slah harc\u0131, 6 tebligat gideri 46,50-TL, 1 m\u00fczekkere\/posta gideri 21,00-TL, bilirki\u015fi \u00fccreti 500,00-TL, 890,07-Euro kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 8.624,77-TL eksper rapor \u00fccreti olmak \u00fczere toplam 9.958,38-TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin (sigorta \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011fu, h\u00fckmedilen tutar\u0131n yukar\u0131da belirtilen bakiye poli\u00e7e limitine oranlanmas\u0131 suretiyle olacak \u015fekilde) daval\u0131dan tahsili ile davac\u0131 tarafa verilmesine,<\/p>\n
5-)7155 Say\u0131l\u0131 yasan\u0131n 19\/12\/2018 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 23.maddesiyle eklenen 6325 Say\u0131l\u0131 yasan\u0131n 18\/A maddesi gere\u011fince taraflar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan arabuluculuk faaliyeti sonunda, ileride haks\u0131z \u00e7\u0131kacak taraftan al\u0131nmak \u00fczere Hazine taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanan 1.320,00-TL arabuluculuk \u00fccretinin yarg\u0131lama gideri olarak daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak, Hazineye gelir kayd\u0131na (sigorta \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011fu, h\u00fckmedilen tutar\u0131n yukar\u0131da belirtilen bakiye poli\u00e7e limitine oranlanmas\u0131 suretiyle olacak \u015fekilde),<\/p>\n
6-)HMK 333.maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde varsa taraflarca yat\u0131r\u0131lan gider avans\u0131ndan kalan bakiyenin yerel mahkemece hesaplanarak ilgili oldu\u011fu tarafa iadesine”,<\/p>\n
\u015eEKL\u0130NDE YEN\u0130DEN H\u00dcK\u00dcM TES\u0130S\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
II-Daval\u0131 vekilinin SA\u0130R \u0130ST\u0130NAF \u0130T\u0130RAZLARININ REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
III-\u0130ST\u0130NAF A\u015eAMASINDA; daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yat\u0131r\u0131lan 761,09 TL istinaf karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde daval\u0131ya iadesine,<\/p>\n
IV-\u0130stinaf incelemesi esnas\u0131nda daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanan 220,70 TL istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurma harc\u0131na ili\u015fkin yarg\u0131lama giderinin davac\u0131dan al\u0131narak daval\u0131ya verilmesine,<\/p>\n
V-)\u0130stinaf incelemesi duru\u015fmas\u0131z yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na,<\/p>\n
VI-Karar\u0131n taraflara tebli\u011fi, kesinle\u015ftirme, har\u00e7 ve gider avans\u0131 i\u015flemlerinin ilk derece mahkemesince yerine getirilmesine,<\/p>\n
Dair; dosya \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan inceleme neticesinde HMK’n\u0131n 362\/1-a maddesi gere\u011fince kesin olmak \u00fczere oybirli\u011fi ile karar verildi. 04.12.2024<\/p>\n
kazanci.com<\/p>\n
\u200bDaval\u0131 Sigorta \u015eirketinin Sorumlulu\u011funun Poli\u00e7e Limiti \u0130le S\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu ve Poli\u00e7enin TL Olarak D\u00fczenlendi\u011fi G\u00f6zetildi\u011finde Mahkemece Kurulan H\u00fck\u00fcmde Bakiye Poli\u00e7e Limitinin Yaz\u0131lmayarak Eksik B\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n Do\u011fru Olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\/Zira Kaza Tarihi \u0130tibariyle ZMM Poli\u00e7e Limiti 41.000 TL Olup Davadan \u00d6nce Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Olan 5.903,66 TL K\u0131smi \u00d6deme D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde Sigorta \u015eirketinin Bakiye Sorumlulu\u011funun Yaln\u0131zca 35.096,34 TL’ye Kadar Oldu\u011fu A\u00e7\u0131k Olup H\u00fckm\u00fcn Yabanc\u0131 Para Cinsinden Tesisi…\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. \u0130ZM\u0130R B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 20. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2022\/856 K. 2024\/1769 T. 4.12.2024 YABANCI PLAKALI ARACIN KARI\u015eTI\u011eI MADD\u0130 HASARLI TRAF\u0130K KAZASI NEDEN\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT ( Daval\u0131 Sigorta \u015eirketinin Sorumlulu\u011funun Poli\u00e7e Limiti \u0130le S\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 Oldu\u011fu ve Poli\u00e7enin TL Olarak D\u00fczenlendi\u011fi G\u00f6zetildi\u011finde Mahkemece Kurulan H\u00fck\u00fcmde Bakiye Poli\u00e7e Limitinin Yaz\u0131lmayarak Eksik B\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n Do\u011fru Olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\/Zira Kaza Tarihi \u0130tibariyle ZMM Poli\u00e7e Limiti 41.000 TL Olup Davadan \u00d6nce Yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Olan 5.903,66 TL K\u0131smi \u00d6deme D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde Sigorta \u015eirketinin Bakiye Sorumlulu\u011funun Yaln\u0131zca 35.096,34 TL’ye Kadar Oldu\u011fu A\u00e7\u0131k Olup H\u00fckm\u00fcn Yabanc\u0131 Para Cinsinden Tesisi ve Fiili \u00d6deme Tarihindeki Kur Olarak TL Kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6denecek Olmas\u0131 Nedeniyle Daval\u0131 Taraf\u0131n Hak Kayb\u0131na Neden Olacak H\u00fckm\u00fcn D\u00fczeltilmesi Gere\u011fi ) ZORUNLU MAL\u0130 SORUMLULUK S\u0130GORTASI KAPSAMINDA TAZM\u0130NAT VE POL\u0130\u00c7E L\u0130M\u0130T\u0130 ( Sigorta \u015eirketinin Sorumlulu\u011funun Poli\u00e7e Limiti ile S\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 Olmas\u0131 Gere\u011fi\/Yabanc\u0131 Plakal\u0131 Ara\u00e7 \u0130\u00e7in Tazminat\u0131n Yabanc\u0131 Para Cinsinden Belirlenebilece\u011fi Ancak Poli\u00e7e Limitinin TL Cinsinden Oldu\u011fu ve Sorumlulu\u011fun Buna G\u00f6re Hesaplanmas\u0131 Gerekti\u011fi) 6098\/m.51 \u00d6ZET: Dava, yabanc\u0131 plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi hasarl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 nedeniyle maddi tazminat istemine ili\u015fkindir. Karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131ndaki hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 y\u00f6nler itibariyle daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc gerekmi\u015ftir. \u015e\u00f6yle ki; her ne kadar bilirki\u015fi raporundaki hesaplamada \u00f6denen tutar\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmesi suretiyle bakiye tazminat tutar\u0131n\u0131n belirlendi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte ise de, daval\u0131 tarafta yaln\u0131zca sigorta \u015firketi yer …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n