T.C.
\nYARGITAY
\n10. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130
\nE. 2023\/10220
\nK. 2024\/5976
\nT. 28.5.2024<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015e KAZASINA DAYALI TAZM\u0130NAT ( Uyulan Bozma Karar\u0131 Kapsam\u0131 Do\u011frultusunda \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131l\u0131p Bozma Kapsam\u0131 D\u0131\u015f\u0131nda Kalan Hususlar\u0131n Taraflar Lehine Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hak Olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da G\u00f6zetilerek \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Bu Kapsamda da Kabul Edilen Gerek\u00e7enin A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a Davac\u0131 Taraf Lehine Olu\u015fan Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hakk\u0131n \u0130hlali Olu\u015fturdu\u011funun Dikkate Al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00d6te Yandan Bozma Do\u011frultusunda Al\u0131nan Heyet Raporu Kapsam\u0131nda Davac\u0131n\u0131n %60 Oran\u0131nda Kusurlu Oldu\u011funa Dair Tespit \u0130le Dava Harici Alt \u0130\u015fverene Verilen %40 Kusurdan Daval\u0131n\u0131n As\u0131l \u0130\u015fveren ve Daval\u0131n\u0131n da As\u0131l \u0130\u015fveren Vekili Olarak M\u00fcteselsil Sorumlu Olacaklar\u0131 De\u011ferlendirilmesi Gere\u011fi )<\/p>\n
VEKALET \u00dcCRET\u0130 ( Davan\u0131n BEDA\u015e Aleyhine A\u00e7\u0131lmakla Beraber Yarg\u0131lama A\u015famas\u0131nda Sunulan Belge ve Beyanlara G\u00f6re Davan\u0131n TEDA\u015e Aleyhine Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi Gerekti\u011fi Belirtildi\u011fi ve Bu Bozma Karar\u0131 Sonras\u0131nda Yap\u0131lan Yarg\u0131lamada Daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e’\u0131n Kendisini Vekille Temsil Ettirmi\u015f Olmas\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131n Mahkemece \u0130\u015f Bu Son Kararda Hakk\u0131ndaki Dava Reddolmas\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131n Kendisini Vekille Temsil Ettimedi\u011fi Belirtilerek Daval\u0131 Lehine Ret Vekalet \u00dccreti Takdir Edilmemi\u015f Olmas\u0131n\u0131n Hatal\u0131 Oldu\u011fu )<\/p>\n
USUL\u0130 KAZANILMI\u015e HAK ( Tazminat – Uyulan Bozma Karar\u0131 Kapsam\u0131 Do\u011frultusunda \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131l\u0131p Bozma Kapsam\u0131 D\u0131\u015f\u0131nda Kalan Hususlar\u0131n Taraflar Lehine Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hak Olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da G\u00f6zetilerek \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Bu Kapsamda da Kabul Edilen Gerek\u00e7enin A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a Davac\u0131 Taraf Lehine Olu\u015fan Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hakk\u0131n \u0130hlali Olu\u015fturdu\u011funun Dikkate Al\u0131nmas\u0131 Gere\u011fi )<\/p>\n
6098\/m.55,420<\/p>\n
\u00d6ZET: Uyulan bozma karar\u0131 kapsam\u0131 do\u011frultusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131p, bozma kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan hususlar\u0131n taraflar lehine usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da g\u00f6zetilerek, inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131, bu kapsamda da kabul edilen gerek\u00e7enin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a davac\u0131 taraf lehine olu\u015fan usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n ihlali olu\u015fturdu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nmak, \u00f6te yandan bozma do\u011frultusunda al\u0131nan heyet raporu kapsam\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n %60 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011funa dair tespit ile dava harici alt i\u015fverene verilen %40 kusurdan daval\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131l i\u015fveren ve daval\u0131n\u0131n da as\u0131l i\u015fveren vekili olarak m\u00fcteselsil sorumlu olacaklar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilip, sorumlu olan daval\u0131lar\u0131n tazminat alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan (Mahkemece verilen 25.11.2014 tarihli ilk karar\u0131 vekilinin temyiz sebepleri dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda maddi tazminat\u0131n hesab\u0131 noktas\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k temyizi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek) usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f haklara g\u00f6re 28.10.2014 tarihli hesap raporuna uygulanarak maddi tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek, manevi tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de hakkaniyete uygun bir miktara h\u00fckmetmekten ibarettir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan ilk bozma karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere davan\u0131n BEDA\u015e aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lmakla beraber, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sunulan belge ve beyanlara g\u00f6re davan\u0131n TEDA\u015e aleyhine y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtildi\u011fi ve bu bozma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e’\u0131n kendisini vekille temsil ettirmi\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, mahkemece i\u015f bu son kararda hakk\u0131ndaki dava reddolmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n kendisini vekille temsil ettimedi\u011fi belirtilerek daval\u0131 lehine ret vekalet \u00fccreti takdir edilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
DAVA : Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki i\u015f kazas\u0131na dayal\u0131 tazminat istemi davas\u0131 nedeniyle Mahkemece Dairemizce verilen bozma karar\u0131na uyularak h\u00fck\u00fcmde belirtilen gerek\u00e7elerle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul ve k\u0131smen reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme karar\u0131 as\u0131l dosyada davac\u0131-birle\u015fen davada daval\u0131 … vekili ile as\u0131l davada daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015f, as\u0131l dosyada daval\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … vekilinin kat\u0131lma yoluyla temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur. As\u0131l dosyada davac\u0131-birle\u015fen davada daval\u0131 … vekili temyiz incelemesinin duru\u015fmal\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015f, i\u015fin duru\u015fmaya t\u00e2bi oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve duru\u015fma i\u00e7in 28.05.2024 Sal\u0131 g\u00fcn\u00fc tayin edilerek taraflara \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131 ka\u011f\u0131d\u0131 g\u00f6nderilmi\u015fti. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc duru\u015fmal\u0131 temyiz eden davac\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada daval\u0131 … ad\u0131na Av. … ile daval\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … ad\u0131na Av. … … ve daval\u0131 … Elektrik Da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m A.\u015e. ad\u0131na Av. …’\u0131n geldi\u011fi, di\u011fer taraflar adlar\u0131na gelen olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fckten sonra duru\u015fmaya ba\u015flanarak haz\u0131r bulunan avukatlar\u0131n s\u00f6zl\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendikten sonra, duru\u015fmaya son verilerek yap\u0131lan incelemede; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten ve Tetkik H\u00e2kimi … taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
KARAR : I. DAVA<\/p>\n
1.Davac\u0131 … vekili as\u0131l dosyan\u0131n 21.06.2006 tarihli dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131lardan …’\u0131n sahibi oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n d\u0131\u015f cephe s\u0131va i\u015flerini yapmak \u00fczere di\u011fer daval\u0131 … ile anla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin d\u0131\u015f cephe ustas\u0131 oldu\u011funu, \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fyerinden \u00fccretsiz izne ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fundan bu i\u015fi di\u011fer i\u015f\u00e7iler ile birlikte kabul etti\u011fini, i\u015fe ba\u015flad\u0131ktan 15 g\u00fcn sonra m\u00fcvekkilinin d\u0131\u015f cephe asans\u00f6r halat\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ekerek d\u00fczeltmek isterken halat\u0131n elektrik tellerine de\u011fmesi sonucunda elektrik \u00e7arpmas\u0131 \u00fczerine a\u011f\u0131r yaraland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu olay sebebiyle m\u00fcvekkiline %65,44 oran\u0131nda maluliyet raporu verildi\u011fini, maddi ve manevi olarak ma\u011fdur oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klayarak s\u00fcrekli i\u015f g\u00f6remezlik d\u00f6nemi zarar\u0131 olarak 10.000 TL, ge\u00e7ici i\u015f g\u00f6remezlik d\u00f6nemi zarar\u0131 olarak 5.000 TL ve tedavi gideri olarak 5.000,00 TL ile manevi tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131 olarak 50.000 TL’nin kaza tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek faiziyle beraber daval\u0131lar …, …, Bo\u011fazi\u00e7i Elektrik Da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m A.\u015e. ve TEDA\u015e’tan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015f, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n devam\u0131nda 15.12.2011 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esiyle fazlaya ili\u015fkin talep hakk\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere i\u015f g\u00f6remezlikten kaynakl\u0131 tazminat istemini 340.951,26 TL’ye art\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2.Davac\u0131 … ve … vekili birle\u015fen dosyan\u0131n 10.03.2015 tarihli dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; as\u0131l dosyada talep harici kalan 20.864,05 TL i\u00e7in davac\u0131 ilams\u0131z icra takibi yapt\u0131, daval\u0131 vekili bu icra takibine itiraz etmemesi nedeniyle takibin kesinle\u015fmesi nedeniyle, bu miktardan bor\u00e7suz oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131yla as\u0131l dosya davac\u0131s\u0131 …’a kar\u015f\u0131 menfi tespit davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP<\/p>\n
1.As\u0131l Davada daval\u0131lar … ve … vekilleri cevap dilek\u00e7esi ile daval\u0131 …’\u0131n bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 oldu\u011fu ve bunda in\u015faat yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011funu, fakat … \u0131n … isimli ki\u015fi ile hi\u00e7bir akdi ba\u011f\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7i-i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 … i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, zira karde\u015finin vekili olarak yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flerden dolay\u0131 sorumlu tutulabilece\u011finin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemeyece\u011fini, bahse konu olay\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fcyle iki daval\u0131n\u0131n da bilgisi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, b\u00f6yle bir olay s\u00f6zkonusu ise ve bu hizmet kusurundan kaynaklan\u0131yor ise davac\u0131n\u0131n ancak idare mahkemesinde sorumlu idareye kar\u015f\u0131 dava a\u00e7abilece\u011fini, bu nedenle a\u00e7\u0131lan davada g\u00f6rev yerinin idari yarg\u0131 olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, asl\u0131nda iddia edilen tarihe g\u00f6re olay\u0131n zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131na da u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klayarak davan\u0131n g\u00f6rev y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, esas y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine, zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 itiraz\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2.As\u0131l davada daval\u0131 BEDA\u015e vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esi ile davac\u0131n\u0131n olay\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fini iddia etti\u011fi tarihe g\u00f6re taleplerinin zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkiline husumet y\u00f6neltilemeyece\u011fini, davac\u0131 ve di\u011fer daval\u0131lar\u0131n y\u00f6netmeli\u011fe uygun tesis edilmi\u015f olan elektrik tellerine kendi kusurlar\u0131 ile ve hi\u00e7bir g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6nlemi almadan temas etmeleri nedeni ile husumet itirazlar\u0131 oldu\u011funu, enerji nakil hatlar\u0131n\u0131n standartlara uygun olarak yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve her ay periyodik olarak bak\u0131m\u0131 ve onar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klayarak davan\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle m\u00fcvekkili idare y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumetten, esastan ve g\u00f6revden reddine, zaman a\u015f\u0131m\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. BOZMA \u00d6NCES\u0130 VE BOZMA KARARI<\/p>\n
A-) Mahkemenin \u0130lk Karar\u0131<\/p>\n
Mahkemenin 25.11.2014 tarih ve 2013\/36 E.-2014\/348 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda \u00f6zetle t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131n\u0131n birlikte de\u011ferlendirilmesi sonucunda; davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131lar … ve … nezdinde hizmet akdi ile \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada 19.03.2005 tarihinde i\u015f kazas\u0131 ge\u00e7irerek malul kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, adli t\u0131p kurumu genel kurulunun 27.02.2014 tarihli raporu ile davac\u0131n\u0131n maluliyet oran\u0131n\u0131n %71 olarak kesin \u015fekilde belirlendi\u011fi, meydana gelen kazada daval\u0131lar … ve … \u0131n %60, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 … isimli \u015fahs\u0131n %20, kazal\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin ise %20 oran\u0131nda kusurlu olduklar\u0131, binan\u0131n y\u00fcksek gerilim hatt\u0131ndan \u00f6nce yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair delil ve tespit bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131 BEDA\u015e’\u0131n kusursuz oldu\u011fu, dosyada \u00fccret bordrosunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015fin \u00f6zelli\u011fi ve tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak kaza tarihinde g\u00fcnl\u00fck 50 TL \u00fccretle \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, davac\u0131ya %71 maluliyet oran\u0131na g\u00f6re ba\u011flanan gelirin ilk pe\u015fin sermaye de\u011ferini g\u00f6sterir kay\u0131tlar SGK’dan celpedilmi\u015f, u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi zarar\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesinde SGK taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmayan ve daval\u0131lar\u0131n kusuruna isabet eden tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n 361.815,31 TL olarak belirlendi\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u0131slah ile birlikte toplam talebinin 340.951,26 TL oldu\u011fu, ayn\u0131 raporda ispatlayabildi\u011fi tedavi gideri talebinin 206 TL olarak tespit edildi\u011fi, bilirki\u015fi raporunun dosyadaki delil durumu ile uyumlu ve h\u00fckme dayanak yap\u0131lmaya elveri\u015fli bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle davac\u0131n\u0131n dava ve \u0131slah talepleri do\u011frultusunda maddi tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcne, tedavi giderine ili\u015fkin talebinin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, manevi tazminat talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise; kazan\u0131n olu\u015f \u015fekli ve sonucuna davac\u0131da meydana gelen maluliyet oran\u0131na taraflar\u0131n kusur oranlar\u0131na, sosyal ve ekonomik durumlar\u0131na, kaza tarihi ve kaza tarihinden itibaren faiz y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesine g\u00f6re talebin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, daval\u0131 BEDA\u015e’\u0131n kusurunun bulunmamas\u0131 sebebiyle bu daval\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleriyle davac\u0131n\u0131n maddi tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcyle 340.951,26 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve manevi tazminat talebinin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle 40.000,00 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n kaza tarihi 19.03.2005 tarihinden, tedavi giderine ili\u015fkin talebin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle 206,00 TL alaca\u011f\u0131n dava tarihi 21.06.2006 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131lar … ve …’tan m\u00fcteselsilen al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B-) \u0130lk Bozma Karar\u0131<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n davac\u0131 … ile daval\u0131lar … ve … vekillerince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine;<\/p>\n
A-) Somut olayda, kazan\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi orta gerilim hatt\u0131n\u0131n ne zaman tesis edilmi\u015f oldu\u011funa, ayn\u0131 yerde ba\u015fka bir i\u015f kazas\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, hatt\u0131n mevzuata uygun y\u00fckseklikte bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin yeterli ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmadan yetersiz kusur raporu h\u00fckme esas al\u0131narak sonuca gidilmesi do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, o halde orta gerilim hatt\u0131n\u0131n ne zaman ve hangi nedenlerle yer alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na, ayn\u0131 yerde ba\u015fka bir i\u015f kazas\u0131 olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, kazan\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini binan\u0131n ruhsat i\u015flemlerine ili\u015fkin belgeler ile gerilim hatt\u0131n\u0131n binaya uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131n yap\u0131larak, zararland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 77. maddesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ko\u015fullar g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutularak konusunda uzman i\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi uzmanlar\u0131ndan olu\u015fan \u00fc\u00e7 ki\u015filik bilirki\u015fi heyetine dosyan\u0131n yeniden incelettirilerek taraflar\u0131n kusur ve sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi ile sonuca gidilmesi,<\/p>\n
B-) Somut olayda, imzal\u0131 \u00fccret bordrolar\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dava dilek\u00e7esinde davac\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcnl\u00fck 60,00 TL yevmiye ile \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n beyan edildi\u011fi, Mahkemece S\u0131vac\u0131, Boyac\u0131 ve \u0130n\u015faat\u00e7\u0131lar Esnaf Odas\u0131ndan emsal \u00fccret ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bilirki\u015fi hesap raporunda davac\u0131 beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re asgari \u00fccretin 4.28 kat\u0131 ile emsal \u00fccrete g\u00f6re asgari \u00fccretin 3.33 kat\u0131 \u00fccret \u00fczerinden iki se\u00e7enekli rapor d\u00fczenlenildi\u011fi, Mahkemece emsal \u00fccret \u00fczerinden yap\u0131lan hesaplaman\u0131n h\u00fckme esas al\u0131narak sonuca gidildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, hesaplamaya esas \u00fccretin tespiti i\u00e7in birde TU\u0130K ile \u00c7evre ve \u015eehircilik \u0130l M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden olay tarihinde alabilece\u011fi emsal g\u00fcnl\u00fck net \u00fccretleri ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 sormak, buralardan gelecek neticelere g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015f, ya\u015f\u0131 ve k\u0131demine en uygun \u00fccretin tespit edilerek, maddi zarar\u0131n\u0131 yeniden hesaplatmak ve \u00e7\u0131kacak sonuca g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n talebini a\u015fmamak kayd\u0131yla bir karar verilmesi,<\/p>\n
C-) \u00d6te yandan, davan\u0131n BEDA\u015e aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ancak yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sunulan belge ve beyanlara g\u00f6re davan\u0131n TEDA\u015e aleyhine y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131larak TEDA\u015e aleyhine y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesine ra\u011fmen, Mahkemece maddi hata ile gerek\u00e7eli karar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda TEDA\u015e’\u0131n ihbar olunan olarak g\u00f6sterilmesi ile h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131nda BEDA\u015e y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan Mahkemece verilen karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
C-) Mahkemenin \u0130kinci Karar\u0131<\/p>\n
Mahkemenin 13.03.2020 tarih 2016\/23 Esas – 2020\/347 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda \u00f6zetle Yarg\u0131tay bozma ilam\u0131 \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclen yarg\u0131lama neticesinde dava konusu olay a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan TEDA\u015e(BEDA\u015e)’\u0131n kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dava konusu olay a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n %20 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011fu di\u011fer daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e (BEDA\u015e) haricindeki di\u011fer daval\u0131lar\u0131n kusur oran\u0131n\u0131n %80 oldu\u011fu, Mahkemece ald\u0131r\u0131lan 08.04.2019 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporundaki tespit edilen miktarlar\u0131n daha \u00f6nceden \u0131slah ile art\u0131r\u0131lan \u00fcst\u00fcnde oldu\u011fu g\u00f6zetilerek as\u0131l dosyaya konu taleplerin h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, Birle\u015fen dosya a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, birle\u015fen dosyaya konu Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 16.\u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin 2015\/476 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda icra takibine konu yap\u0131lan de\u011ferin a\u015fan miktarda mahkememizin as\u0131l dosyas\u0131ndaki 08.04.2019 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporundaki yap\u0131lan tespitler g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurulup t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131ndan birle\u015fen dosyan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleriyle as\u0131l dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e(BEDA\u015e)’a kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine, daval\u0131 … ve … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise davac\u0131n\u0131n maddi tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcyle 340.951,26 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve manevi tazminat talebinin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle 40.000,00 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n kaza tarihi 19.03.2005 tarihinden, tedavi giderine ili\u015fkin talebin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle 206,00 TL alaca\u011f\u0131n dava tarihi 21\/06\/2006 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131lar … ve …’tan m\u00fcteselsilen al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine, birle\u015fen dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; davan\u0131n reddine, Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 16. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nin 26.01.2016 tarihli icra veznesine yatacak paran\u0131n alacakl\u0131ya \u00f6denmemesi \u015feklindeki ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ve bu hususta icra dairesine m\u00fczekkere yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na, karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
D-) \u0130kinci Bozma Karar\u0131<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n as\u0131l davada davac\u0131 ve birle\u015fen davada daval\u0131 … ile as\u0131l davada daval\u0131 birle\u015fen davada davac\u0131 … vekillerince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; Dairemizin 28.09.2021 tarih ve 2021\/4847 E.- 2021\/11087 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131yla h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fme \u015feklinin kabul\u00fcne g\u00f6re kusur da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur. Zira i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi elektrik telleri ile in\u015faat aras\u0131ndaki mesafe g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde i\u015fverenlere verilen kusur oran\u0131 hatal\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan her ne kadar kusur verilen t\u00fcm taraflar\u0131n olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinde asli kusurlu oldu\u011fu belirtilerek kusur oran\u0131 da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de, olayda bask\u0131n kusurlu olan taraf\u0131n, s\u0131vac\u0131 ustas\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131yla i\u015fyerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan, olay an\u0131nda hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak d\u00fczeltmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 asans\u00f6r tellerini yolun kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na ge\u00e7ip germek suretiyle bu yolun \u00fczerinden ge\u00e7en elektirik tellerine temas edece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rmesi gereken davac\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. O halde davac\u0131ya bu a\u011f\u0131r kusuruna ra\u011fmen %20 d\u00fczeyinde kusur verilmesinin kabul\u00fc hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, mahkemece i\u015f dosyan\u0131n itibar olunan 20.07.2018 tarihli kusur bilirki\u015fi heyetine tevdii ile yap\u0131lan bu tespitlere g\u00f6re taraflar ile dava harici \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin kusur oranlar\u0131n\u0131n aidiyeti noktas\u0131nda olay\u0131n olu\u015funa uygun kusur oranlar\u0131n\u0131 belirler mahiyette rapor d\u00fczenlemesini istemek, taraflar lehine olu\u015fan usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f haklara riayet ederek davan\u0131n esas\u0131 hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi y\u00f6nlerinden karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
IV. BOZMA KARARI \u00dcZER\u0130NE VER\u0130LEN KARAR<\/p>\n
Bozma karar\u0131na uyan Mahkemece yukar\u0131da tarih ve numaras\u0131 yaz\u0131l\u0131 kararda \u00f6zetle; Bozma ilam\u0131 do\u011frultusunda al\u0131nan 25\/05\/2022 tarihli kusur raporuna g\u00f6re …’\u0131n i\u015fveren veya as\u0131l i\u015fveren de\u011fil, i\u015f (in\u015faat) sahibi olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile b\u00fct\u00fcn y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tamamen dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 …’a anahtar teslim olarak b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kusursuz oldu\u011fu, yani davaya konu olayda, in\u015faat alan\u0131 dahilinde veya yak\u0131n\u0131nda, Orta Gerilim enerji nakil hatlar\u0131n\u0131n, kesinlikle risk olu\u015fturmayacak mesafeden ge\u00e7ti\u011fi, hatt\u0131n binaya g\u00fcvenlik mesafesinin, gerekenden \u00e7ok fazla (10,5-11,5 m) oldu\u011fu halde, kazal\u0131 davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin hi\u00e7bir talimat almadan, metal vin\u00e7 halat\u0131 ile in\u015faat g\u00fcvelik alan\u0131n\u0131n 25 metre d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karak ve halat\u0131 \u00e7ekerek kazaya sebebiyet vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeni ile \u201c\u00fcstlenme kusuru\u201d ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, meydana gelen kaza ile i\u015f (\u00f6zel in\u015faat) sahibi aras\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kesildi\u011fi, dava harici …’\u0131n i\u015fveren olarak %40 ve davac\u0131 sigortal\u0131n\u0131n %60 kusurlu old\u011funun tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 ayr\u0131ca TEDA\u015e(BEDA\u015e)’\u0131n da olayda kusuru bulunmay\u0131p haklar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddinin gerekmesi nedeniyle an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar hakk\u0131nda ret karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011fi ne varki daval\u0131 …’\u0131n daha \u00f6nce 2016\/23 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dava dosyas\u0131 \u00fczerinden verilen karar\u0131 temyiz etmemesi nedeniyle davac\u0131 lehine do\u011fan usuli m\u00fcktesep hak kapsam\u0131nda sorumlulu\u011funun bulundu\u011funun de\u011ferlendirilerek; as\u0131l dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e(BEDA\u015e) ve …’a kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine, daval\u0131 … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; davac\u0131n\u0131n maddi tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcyle 340.951,26 TL maddi tazminat\u0131n ve manevi tazminat talebinin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcyle 40.000,00 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n kaza tarihi 19.03.2005 tarihinden, tedavi giderine ili\u015fkin talebin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile; 206,00 TL alaca\u011f\u0131n dava tarihi 21.06.2006 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131 …’tan tahsili ile davac\u0131ya verilmesine, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine, birle\u015fen dava y\u00f6n\u00fcnden; davac\u0131 …’\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine, net 4.172,80 TL miktar\u0131ndaki k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet tazminat\u0131n\u0131n birle\u015fen dosyan\u0131n davac\u0131s\u0131 olan …’dan al\u0131narak birle\u015fen dosyan\u0131n daval\u0131s\u0131na verilmesine, Davac\u0131 … taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcyle bu davac\u0131n\u0131n Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 15.\u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2015\/220 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibe konu alacak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitine ve Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y 15.\u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2015\/220 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile ba\u015flat\u0131lan icra takibinin bu davac\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden iptaline karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. TEMY\u0130Z<\/p>\n
A. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar<\/p>\n
Mahkeme karar\u0131 as\u0131l dosyada davac\u0131-birle\u015fen davada daval\u0131 … vekili ile as\u0131l davada daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015f, as\u0131l dosyada daval\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … vekilinin … vekilin temyizine kat\u0131lma yoluyla temyiz talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri<\/p>\n
1.As\u0131l dosyada davac\u0131-birle\u015fen davada daval\u0131 … vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle daval\u0131lar … ve … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden var\u0131lan kanaatin bozma kararlar\u0131 ile olu\u015fan usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin 5 metre yolu kar\u015f\u0131ya ge\u00e7erek g\u0131rg\u0131r vincin tellerini temas ettirmesinin s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Ayn\u0131 zamanda bozma ilam\u0131nda i\u015faret edilen 20.07.2018 tarihli raporda da bu y\u00f6nde bir tespite yer verimedi\u011fini, y\u00fcksek gerilim hatt\u0131n\u0131n yak\u0131n olmas\u0131 nedeniyle i\u015f kazas\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini, 1.bozmadan sonra al\u0131nan raporda ve r\u00fccu dosyas\u0131 raporlar\u0131nda daval\u0131 BEDA\u015e’a %20 kusur verilmi\u015ftir. Kazadan sonra daval\u0131 idarenin y\u00fcksek gerilim hatt\u0131n\u0131 toprak alt\u0131na ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yerle\u015fim yeri olan kaza alan\u0131nda y\u00fcksek gerilim hatt\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan ge\u00e7mesi nedeniyle TEDA\u015e’\u0131n sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, hatt\u0131n mevzuat\u0131n arad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve bozma karar\u0131nda i\u015faret oluna mesafelere uygun olmadan ge\u00e7irildi\u011fini ayn\u0131 zamanda TEDA\u015e’\u0131n hatt\u0131 kontrol y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etti\u011fini, r\u00fccu davas\u0131nda TEDA\u015e’a %10 kusur verildi\u011fini, dava BEDA\u015e’a kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na ve taraf de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi olmamas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n TEDA\u015e’\u0131n daval\u0131 olarak g\u00f6sterilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, yarg\u0131lama giderinin eksik hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, birle\u015fen davada … sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 gerekirken hatal\u0131 \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirme ile bu daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddoldu\u011funu, birle\u015fen davada m\u00fcvekkili lehine davac\u0131 … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden nispi ret vekalet \u00fccreti takdiri gerekti\u011fi halde vekalet \u00fccretinin hatal\u0131 tespit edildi\u011fini, beyanla karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2.As\u0131l dosyada daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; lehlerine vekalet \u00fccreti takdir edilmemesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu beyanla karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3.As\u0131l dosyada daval\u0131 -birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … vekilinin kat\u0131lma yoluyla temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle m\u00fcvekkili hakk\u0131nda davan\u0131n reddi nedeniyle nispi ret vekalet \u00fccreti takdiri gerekirken hatal\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesis edilmesi ve lehine yarg\u0131lama gideri h\u00fckmedilmemesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, beyanla karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e<\/p>\n
1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme<\/p>\n
Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan s\u00fcrekli i\u015f g\u00f6remezli\u011fe u\u011frayan sigortal\u0131n\u0131n maddi ve manevi manevi tazminat istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Hukuk<\/p>\n
“Temyiz incelemesi” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 HMK Ge\u00e7ici 3\/2 maddesi delaletiyle uygulama imkan\u0131 bulan 26.09.2004 tarihli ve 5236 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunla yap\u0131lan de\u011fi\u015fiklikten \u00f6nceki 1086 Say\u0131l\u0131 HUMK’nun 427 il\u00e2 444. maddeleri, “Tazminat alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi ve sorumluluk” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan zarar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 818 Say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 332 ve 98. maddeleri ile giderek ayn\u0131 Kanunun 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ve 47. maddeleri, \u00f6te yandan 6101 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanun’un 2 ve 7. maddeleri gere\u011fince uygulanma imkan\u0131 bulunan 6098 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanun’un 55 ve 420. maddesi h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, “Olay\u0131n i\u015f kazas\u0131 olarak tespiti ile SGK y\u00f6n\u00fcnden sonu\u00e7lar\u0131” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan i\u015f kazas\u0131 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 506 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 11, 12, 22, 23 ve 26. maddeleri, “\u0130\u015f Sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve G\u00fcvenli\u011fine ili\u015fkin al\u0131nacak tedbirler” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan i\u015fyerinin nitelik ve kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re 4857 Say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 77. maddesiyle ilgili mevzuat h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, “Usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f haklar” a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan 04.02.1959 g\u00fcn ve 13\/5 Say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131 ile 09.05.1960 g\u00fcn ve 21\/9 Say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
1.Mahkemenin, Yarg\u0131tay Dairesince verilen bozma karar\u0131na uymas\u0131 sonunda, kendisi i\u00e7in o kararda g\u00f6sterilen \u015fekilde inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma yaparak, yine o kararda belirtilen hukuki esaslar gere\u011fince h\u00fck\u00fcm verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc do\u011far. ‘Usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak’ olarak tan\u0131mlayaca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z bu olgu; Mahkemeye, h\u00fckm\u00fcne uydu\u011fu Yarg\u0131tay bozma karar\u0131nda belirtilen \u00e7er\u00e7evede i\u015flem yapma ve h\u00fck\u00fcm kurma zorunlulu\u011fu getirdi\u011fi gibi Mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131 bozmu\u015f olan Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Dairesince sonradan, ilk bozma karar\u0131 ile benimsemi\u015f oldu\u011fu esaslara usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakka ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir \u015fekilde, ikinci bir bozma karar\u0131 verilememektedir (09.05.1960 g\u00fcn ve 21\/9 Say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131, Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 12.07.2006 g\u00fcn, 2006\/9-508 E., 2006\/521 Say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
2.Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan bozulan bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalm\u0131\u015f olan k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131 kesinle\u015fir. Bozma karar\u0131na uymu\u015f olan Mahkeme kesinle\u015fen bu k\u0131s\u0131mlar hakk\u0131nda yeniden inceleme yaparak karar veremez. Bir ba\u015fka anlat\u0131mla, kesinle\u015fmi\u015f bu k\u0131s\u0131mlar, lehine olan taraf yarar\u0131na usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015fturur. (04.02.1959 g\u00fcn ve 13\/5 Say\u0131l\u0131 Y\u0130BK).<\/p>\n
3. Somut olayda; Mahkemece verilen ilk ve ikinci kararlara dair bozma kararlar\u0131nda daval\u0131lar … ve …’\u0131n i\u015fverenlik s\u0131fatlar\u0131na dair Mahkeme kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn bozma konusu yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi Dairemizin 28.09.2021 tarih ve 2021\/4847 E.- 2021\/11087 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere; Olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fme \u015fekline dair kabul kapsam\u0131nda olay an\u0131nda hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak d\u00fczeltmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 asans\u00f6r tellerini yolun kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131na ge\u00e7ip germek suretiyle bu yolun \u00fczerinden ge\u00e7en elektirik tellerine temas edece\u011fini \u00f6ng\u00f6rmesi gerekenin davac\u0131 oldu\u011fu, bu kapsamda da bask\u0131n kusurlu olan taraf\u0131n davac\u0131 olarak kabul\u00fc gerekirken %20 oran\u0131nda kusur verilmesine dair kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu de\u011ferlendirilerek karar bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece 14.03.2022 tarihli oturumda bozma ilam\u0131na uyulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. O halde uyulan bozma karar\u0131 kapsam\u0131 do\u011frultusunda inceleme yap\u0131l\u0131p, bozma kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan hususlar\u0131n taraflar lehine usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da g\u00f6zetilerek, inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131, bu kapsamda da daval\u0131 … ile … hakk\u0131nda kabul edilen gerek\u00e7enin a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a davac\u0131 taraf lehine olu\u015fan usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n ihlali olu\u015fturdu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nmak, \u00f6te yandan bozma do\u011frultusunda al\u0131nan heyet raporu kapsam\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n %60 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011funa dair tespit ile dava harici alt i\u015fveren …’a verilen %40 kusurdan daval\u0131 …’\u0131n as\u0131l i\u015fveren ve daval\u0131 …’\u0131n da as\u0131l i\u015fveren vekili olarak m\u00fcteselsil sorumlu olacaklar\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilip, sorumlu olan daval\u0131lar\u0131n tazminat alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan (Mahkemece verilen 25.11.2014 tarihli ilk karar\u0131 … vekilinin temyiz sebepleri dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda maddi tazminat\u0131n hesab\u0131 noktas\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k temyizi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek) usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f haklara g\u00f6re 28.10.2014 tarihli hesap raporuna uygulanarak maddi tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirlemek, manevi tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de hakkaniyete uygun bir miktara h\u00fckmetmekten ibarettir.<\/p>\n
5. \u00d6te yandan 15.12.2015 tarih ve 2015\/5990 E.- 2015\/22601 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilk bozma karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere davan\u0131n BEDA\u015e aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lmakla beraber, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda sunulan belge ve beyanlara g\u00f6re davan\u0131n TEDA\u015e aleyhine y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtildi\u011fi ve bu bozma karar\u0131 sonras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e’\u0131n kendisini vekille temsil ettirmi\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, mahkemece i\u015f bu son kararda hakk\u0131ndaki dava reddolmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n kendisini vekille temsil ettimedi\u011fi belirtilerek daval\u0131 lehine ret vekalet \u00fccreti takdir edilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Kabule g\u00f6re de as\u0131l dosyada daval\u0131- birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 …’\u0131n yarg\u0131lama giderleri hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi gerekirken bu hususta bir karar verilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 da hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
7. Mahkemece bu maddi ve hukuki olgular g\u00f6zetilmeksizin, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup bozma nedenidir.<\/p>\n
8. O halde, temyiz eden taraf vekillerinin bu y\u00f6nleri ama\u00e7layan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek, bozma sebeplerine g\u00f6re sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131 bu a\u015famada incelenmeksizin Mahkemece verilen karar bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7 : A\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle;<\/p>\n
1. As\u0131l dosyada davac\u0131-birle\u015fen davada daval\u0131 … vekili, as\u0131l davada daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e vekili ve as\u0131l dosyada daval\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … vekili temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n sair y\u00f6nleri bu a\u015famada incelenmeksizin HUMK’nun 428.maddesi gere\u011fince Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
2. Pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek h\u00e2linde ilgililere iadesine,<\/p>\n
3. Dairemizde icra edilen duru\u015fmada davac\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada daval\u0131 … kendisini vekille temsil ettirmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 17.100,00 TL vekalet \u00fccretinin daval\u0131- birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … ile …’tan tahsiline, daval\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada davac\u0131 … kendisini vekille temsil ettirmi\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 17.100,00 TL vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131-birle\u015fen dosyada daval\u0131 …’dan tahsiline,<\/p>\n
4. Dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren Mahkemeye g\u00f6nderilmesine, 28.05.2024 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
Kazanc\u0131 Elektronik ve Bas\u0131l\u0131 Yay. A.\u015e.ne ait Kazanc\u0131 Hukuk Otomasyon veritaban\u0131ndan al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00a9 T\u00fcm Haklar\u0131 Sakl\u0131d\u0131r<\/p>\n
\u200bUyulan Bozma Karar\u0131 Kapsam\u0131 Do\u011frultusunda \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131l\u0131p Bozma Kapsam\u0131 D\u0131\u015f\u0131nda Kalan Hususlar\u0131n Taraflar Lehine Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hak Olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da G\u00f6zetilerek \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Bu Kapsamda da Kabul Edilen Gerek\u00e7enin A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a Davac\u0131 Taraf Lehine Olu\u015fan Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hakk\u0131n \u0130hlali Olu\u015fturdu\u011funun Dikkate Al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00d6te Yandan Bozma Do\u011frultusunda Al\u0131nan Heyet Raporu Kapsam\u0131nda Davac\u0131n\u0131n %60 Oran\u0131nda Kusurlu Oldu\u011funa Dair Tespit \u0130le Dava Harici Alt \u0130\u015fverene Verilen %40 Kusurdan Daval\u0131n\u0131n…\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. YARGITAY 10. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 E. 2023\/10220 K. 2024\/5976 T. 28.5.2024 \u0130\u015e KAZASINA DAYALI TAZM\u0130NAT ( Uyulan Bozma Karar\u0131 Kapsam\u0131 Do\u011frultusunda \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131l\u0131p Bozma Kapsam\u0131 D\u0131\u015f\u0131nda Kalan Hususlar\u0131n Taraflar Lehine Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hak Olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da G\u00f6zetilerek \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Bu Kapsamda da Kabul Edilen Gerek\u00e7enin A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a Davac\u0131 Taraf Lehine Olu\u015fan Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hakk\u0131n \u0130hlali Olu\u015fturdu\u011funun Dikkate Al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u00d6te Yandan Bozma Do\u011frultusunda Al\u0131nan Heyet Raporu Kapsam\u0131nda Davac\u0131n\u0131n %60 Oran\u0131nda Kusurlu Oldu\u011funa Dair Tespit \u0130le Dava Harici Alt \u0130\u015fverene Verilen %40 Kusurdan Daval\u0131n\u0131n As\u0131l \u0130\u015fveren ve Daval\u0131n\u0131n da As\u0131l \u0130\u015fveren Vekili Olarak M\u00fcteselsil Sorumlu Olacaklar\u0131 De\u011ferlendirilmesi Gere\u011fi ) VEKALET \u00dcCRET\u0130 ( Davan\u0131n BEDA\u015e Aleyhine A\u00e7\u0131lmakla Beraber Yarg\u0131lama A\u015famas\u0131nda Sunulan Belge ve Beyanlara G\u00f6re Davan\u0131n TEDA\u015e Aleyhine Y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi Gerekti\u011fi Belirtildi\u011fi ve Bu Bozma Karar\u0131 Sonras\u0131nda Yap\u0131lan Yarg\u0131lamada Daval\u0131 TEDA\u015e’\u0131n Kendisini Vekille Temsil Ettirmi\u015f Olmas\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131n Mahkemece \u0130\u015f Bu Son Kararda Hakk\u0131ndaki Dava Reddolmas\u0131na Kar\u015f\u0131n Kendisini Vekille Temsil Ettimedi\u011fi Belirtilerek Daval\u0131 Lehine Ret Vekalet \u00dccreti Takdir Edilmemi\u015f Olmas\u0131n\u0131n Hatal\u0131 Oldu\u011fu ) USUL\u0130 KAZANILMI\u015e HAK ( Tazminat – Uyulan Bozma Karar\u0131 Kapsam\u0131 Do\u011frultusunda \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131l\u0131p Bozma Kapsam\u0131 D\u0131\u015f\u0131nda Kalan Hususlar\u0131n Taraflar Lehine Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hak Olu\u015fturdu\u011fu da G\u00f6zetilerek \u0130nceleme Yap\u0131lmas\u0131 Bu Kapsamda da Kabul Edilen Gerek\u00e7enin A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a Davac\u0131 Taraf Lehine Olu\u015fan Usuli Kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Hakk\u0131n \u0130hlali Olu\u015fturdu\u011funun …<\/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-28671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n