T.C.<\/p>\n
YARGITAY<\/p>\n
6. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130<\/p>\n
Esas Numaras\u0131: 2024\/137<\/p>\n
Karar Numaras\u0131: 2024\/1011<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 22.04.2024<\/p>\n
V\u0130N\u00c7LER\u0130N HASARA U\u011eRAMASI NEDEN\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT \u0130STEM\u0130<\/p>\n
V\u0130N\u00c7LER\u0130N AVRUPA MEN\u015eEL\u0130 OLUP EURO \u00dcZER\u0130NDEN \u0130\u015eLEM G\u00d6RD\u00dc\u011e\u00dc<\/p>\n
DAVA D\u0130LEK\u00c7ES\u0130NDE, M\u00dcVEKK\u0130L\u0130N\u0130N ZARARININ T\u00dcRK L\u0130RASI OLARAK TALEP ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130<\/p>\n
B\u0130L\u0130RK\u0130\u015e\u0130 RAPORLARINDA DAVACI TARAF\u00c7A TALEP ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130 HALDE EURO C\u0130NS\u0130NDEN TAZM\u0130NAT HESAPLAMASI YAPILDI\u011eI<\/p>\n
T\u00dcRK L\u0130RASI DI\u015eINDAK\u0130 PARA C\u0130NS\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT TALEB\u0130N\u0130N YER\u0130 OLMADI\u011eI G\u0130B\u0130 B\u00d6YLE B\u0130R TALEP DE OLMADI\u011eI<\/p>\n
TALEPLE BA\u011eLILIK \u0130LKES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00d6ZET\u0130: Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde, m\u00fcvekkilinin zarar\u0131n\u0131n \u2026 TL oldu\u011funu, bu bedelin de \u2026.. TL’sinin tamir bedeli, \u2026TL’sinin tamirde ge\u00e7ecek s\u00fcrede olu\u015facak gelir kayb\u0131, \u2026. TL’sinin ise de\u011fer kayb\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015f bu bedel \u00fczerinden tazminat talep etmi\u015ftir. Dosyada al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a talep edilmedi\u011fi halde Euro cinsinden tazminat hesaplamas\u0131 yap\u0131larak \u2026. Euro tamir bedeli vincin tamir edilmesi i\u00e7in uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince bu bedelden davac\u0131n\u0131n kusur oran\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclerek TL cinsinden kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 esas al\u0131narak karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava konusu somut olayda TL d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki para cinsiyle tazminat talebinin yeri olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi b\u00f6yle bir talep de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat isteminin Euro cinsinden de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve bunun TL’ye \u00e7evrilerek taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 karar verilmesi hatal\u0131 olup, kusur ve zarar hesaplanarak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
SAYISI : 2022\/914 E., 2022\/1124 K.<\/p>\n
\u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 : Gebze 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi S\u0131fat\u0131yla)<\/p>\n
SAYISI : 2017\/140 E., 2021\/288 K.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki tazminat isteminden dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince istemin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekili ile daval\u0131lar … Makine Gaz Dolum San. ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ve … Tekstil Sanayi ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 taraflar vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten ve Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. DAVA<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; daval\u0131lardan …’\u0131n vin\u00e7 kiralamak i\u00e7in davac\u0131 \u015firkete ba\u015fvurdu\u011funu, davac\u0131 \u015firkete ait vincin operat\u00f6r\u00fc y\u00f6netiminde 20.10.2011 tarihinde s\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fc yap\u0131lan fabrika sahas\u0131na gitti\u011fini, … ve …’\u0131n emir ve direktifi ile s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015flemi yap\u0131l\u0131rken fabrika \u00e7at\u0131s\u0131na ait b\u00fcy\u00fck par\u00e7an\u0131n kesilerek kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 esnas\u0131nda kazan\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fini, vincin kald\u0131rma kolunun k\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kazan\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmak istenen y\u00fck\u00fcn vincin kald\u0131rma kapasitesinin \u00e7ok \u00fczerinde olmas\u0131 nedeni ile meydana geldi\u011fini, kazadan s\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fc yap\u0131lan bina sahibi, s\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fc yapan \u015firketler, s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fini y\u00f6netenlerin m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek kazaya u\u011frayan vin\u00e7lerdeki hasar\u0131n tamiri i\u00e7in gerekli tutar olan 146.116,00 TL’nin tamirde ge\u00e7ecek s\u00fcrede olu\u015facak 25.000,00 TL gelir kayb\u0131n\u0131n, tamir nedeni ile vin\u00e7te meydana gelecek de\u011fer kayb\u0131n\u0131n tutar\u0131 olan 200.000,00 TL’nin kazadan itibaren ticari avans faizi ile birlikte davac\u0131ya maddi tazminat olarak \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP<\/p>\n
1.Daval\u0131 … Tekstil San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkili ile daval\u0131 … Makine Gaz Dolum San. ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. aras\u0131nda eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin bu i\u015fte is\u00e7i \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, alt i\u015fveren as\u0131l i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fabrika sahas\u0131ndaki \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 daval\u0131 m\u00fcteahhit \u015firket … Makine Gaz Dolum San. ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.’nin y\u00fcr\u00fctt\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, vincin … Makine Gaz Dolum San. ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. taraf\u0131ndan kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 m\u00fcteahhit, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede belirtilen i\u015fi belirli bir bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda anahtar teslimi yaparak m\u00fcvekkile teslim etme edimini \u00fczerine ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava konusu tazminat alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinden talep edilemeyece\u011fini savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Daval\u0131 … Fabrikalar\u0131 A.\u015e. vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin davada taraf s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fc s\u0131ras\u0131nda aksakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131 hurdalar\u0131 20.05.2011 tarihli Hurda Sat\u0131\u015f S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi’yle daval\u0131 … Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.’ne devretti\u011fini, i\u015fbu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile daval\u0131 … Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.’nin hurday\u0131 kendi imkan ve elemanlar\u0131 vas\u0131tas\u0131yla t\u00fcm maliyet ve sorumluluklar\u0131 kendine ait olmak \u00fczere s\u00f6k\u00fcp par\u00e7alamay\u0131 ve ta\u015f\u0131may\u0131 \u00fcstlendi\u011fini, bu nedenle t\u00fcm hukuki ve cezai sorumlulu\u011fun daval\u0131 … Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.’ne ait oldu\u011funu savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Daval\u0131lar … ve … Demir San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraf\u0131 olmayan m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin davada taraf s\u0131fat\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili …’\u0131n y\u00fck\u00fcn en fazla 10 ton gelece\u011fini beyan etti\u011fine y\u00f6nelik davac\u0131 iddialar\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131ls\u0131z oldu\u011funu, meydana gelen kazada t\u00fcm kusur ve sorumlulu\u011fun davac\u0131 \u015firket ve \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 operat\u00f6rde oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 …’\u0131n operat\u00f6re talimat verme yetkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi operat\u00f6r\u00fcn de b\u00f6yle bir talimata uyma zorunlulu\u011fu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, operat\u00f6r\u00fcn kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 vin\u00e7te elektronik kantar bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu olup bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ihlal edildi\u011fini savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Daval\u0131lar … Makine Gaz Dolum San. ve Nak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ve … vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkili …’in taraf s\u0131fat\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 … Makine Gaz Dolum San. ve Nak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. nin temsilcisi oldu\u011funu, bu \u015firketin davada zaten taraf oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin daval\u0131 … Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fini \u00fcstlendi\u011fini, esasen i\u015fin … Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. ile birlikte \u00fcstlenildi\u011fini fakat s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi sadece m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu i\u015f i\u00e7in gerekli olan vin\u00e7 ve ekipman\u0131n temini i\u00e7in davac\u0131 ile s\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin davac\u0131 operat\u00f6r\u00fcne emir ve talimat verme yetkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 …’\u0131n operat\u00f6re emir ve talimat verdi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 oldu\u011funu, operat\u00f6r\u00fcn kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 vin\u00e7te elektronik kantar bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firkete atf\u0131 kabil kusur olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI<\/p>\n
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile hasara u\u011frayan vincin kaza tarihi itibariyle davac\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n arac\u0131nda 362.001,00-Euro hasar ve 25.000,00-TL gelir kayb\u0131 oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131lar … Demir San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., … ve daval\u0131 …’\u0131n kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde kusursuz oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131lar … Demir San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., … ve … hakk\u0131ndaki davan\u0131n reddine, di\u011fer daval\u0131lar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan taraflar\u0131n kusur oranlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131narak k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, dava haks\u0131z fiil niteli\u011finde i\u015f kazas\u0131ndan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kaza tarihinden itibaren faiz i\u015fletilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130ST\u0130NAF<\/p>\n
A. \u0130stinaf Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar<\/p>\n
\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili, daval\u0131lar … Mak. Gaz. Dol. San. Ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti ve … Tekstil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. vekilleri istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. \u0130stinaf Sebepleri<\/p>\n
1.Daval\u0131 … Mak. Gaz. Dol. San. Ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde; \u0131slah harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak talepten fazlas\u0131na h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 aras\u0131nda kusur oranlar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan birlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, olayda daval\u0131ya y\u00fcklenebilecek kusur olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131dan vin\u00e7 kiralama hizmeti al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sadece hizmet \u00fccretini \u00f6demekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olan daval\u0131n\u0131n kazadan sorumlu tutulamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sorumlulu\u011fun davac\u0131da oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin emir, talimat ya da tavsiyede bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kaza an\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n o d\u00f6nem saha m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc olan …’nin tan\u0131k olarak dinlenmesi gerekti\u011fini, vincin serd\u00fcmeninin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun davac\u0131n\u0131n tek ba\u015f\u0131na kusurlu oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin sorumlulu\u011fun \u0130\u015f Mevzuat\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fini, olay\u0131n i\u015f davas\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle i\u015f kazalar\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli \u00f6nlem ve tedbirlerin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahsedilemeyece\u011fini, 3095 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 4 nc\u00fc maddesi uyar\u0131nca hatal\u0131 faize h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, h\u00fckmolunan tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n vincin bedelinin tamam\u0131na yak\u0131n oldu\u011funu, sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n sigorta \u015firketlerinden tazminat al\u0131p almad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kaza sebebiyle \u00f6deme alm\u0131\u015f ise bu rakam\u0131n h\u00fckmolunan tazminattan mahsup edilmesi gerekti\u011fini, vincin a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eksik oldu\u011funu, sunulan t\u00fcm raporlarda kusurun davac\u0131da oldu\u011funun belirtildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Davac\u0131 vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; meydana gelen kazada m\u00fcvekkilinin kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n sadece kendisinden talep edilen vinci daval\u0131lara kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kiralanan vincin operat\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcn olmas\u0131n\u0131n olay\u0131 kiralama d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kazan\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi alan\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funda olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u015firketin personele emir ve talimat verme yetkisinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lar\u0131n fazla \u00fccret \u00f6dememek i\u00e7in kald\u0131rma kapasitesi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck olan vinci kiralad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, kald\u0131r\u0131lacak a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131k i\u00e7in m\u00fcvekkiline do\u011fru bilgi aktarmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, vin\u00e7 operat\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcn kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc operat\u00f6r\u00fcn kald\u0131raca\u011f\u0131 par\u00e7ay\u0131 g\u00f6remedi\u011fini, vincin de tartma gibi bir \u00f6zelli\u011finin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kald\u0131rma i\u015flerinde i\u015fi y\u00f6netenin … adl\u0131 ki\u015fi oldu\u011funu, … adl\u0131 ki\u015fiyi bulma ve i\u015fi y\u00f6nlendirme g\u00f6revinin ise i\u015fi yapan firmaya ait oldu\u011funu, ceza davas\u0131ndaki beyanlar\u0131n mahkeme i\u00e7i ikrar niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, …’\u0131n 21.10.2021 tarihli ifadesinde s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fi yap\u0131p 3 ortak olduklar\u0131n\u0131 beyan ettiklerini, ayn\u0131 ki\u015finin par\u00e7an\u0131n a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n 10 tonu ge\u00e7meyece\u011fini belirtti\u011fini, meydana gelen kazadan daval\u0131lar\u0131n m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu olduklar\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lardan …’in yap\u0131 maliki olarak kusursuz sorumlu oldu\u011funu, … Tekstil Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.nin ise … ile yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu s\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca t\u00fcm izinleri almakla sorumlu oldu\u011funu, … Tekstil Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. i\u015fi y\u00fcklenici firmaya vermi\u015f ise de i\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi kurallar\u0131na uyulup uyulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 denetlemesi gerekti\u011fini, sorumsuzluk anla\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n i\u00e7 ili\u015fkide ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funu, 14.06.2011 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sonradan d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, s\u00f6k\u00fcm ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6k\u00fcmde teknik sorumlu m\u00fchendis bulundurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, gerekli g\u00fcvenlik tedbirleri al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi i\u015f g\u00fcvenli\u011fi uzman\u0131 da bulundurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, vincin … ve …’\u0131n emirleriyle y\u00f6nlendirildi\u011finin sabit oldu\u011funu, olay sonras\u0131 haz\u0131rlanan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin bor\u00e7tan kurtulmak amac\u0131yla haz\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 aleyhine tek vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek, karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Daval\u0131 … Tekstil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; davac\u0131n\u0131n talebinin 371.116,00 TL oldu\u011funu ve davan\u0131n bu de\u011fer \u00fczerinden har\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mahkemece hatal\u0131 ve talebe ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verildi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n tamir bedeli talebi 146.116,00 TL iken mahkemece 217.200,60 Euro hasar bedeline h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, gelir kayb\u0131 isteminin de taraflar aras\u0131nda kusur oran\u0131nda payla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, de\u011fer kayb\u0131 talebinin de\u011ferlendirmeye al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, karar\u0131n 09.03.2020 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporuna dayanmakta oldu\u011funu, bilirki\u015fi raporuna y\u00f6nelik itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 tekrarlad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin di\u011fer daval\u0131 … Mak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, alt i\u015fveren \u00fcst i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sorumlulu\u011fun m\u00fcteahhide ait oldu\u011funu, bilirki\u015fi raporunda m\u00fcvekkilinin dava konusu zarardan sorumlulu\u011fun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin davac\u0131 ve di\u011fer daval\u0131lar ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkisine girmedi\u011fini, bu i\u015fte i\u015f\u00e7i \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin anahtar teslimi i\u015fi … Mak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.’ye veren i\u015f sahibi oldu\u011funu, i\u015fi kontrol ve denetim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, onar\u0131m masraflar\u0131 ve mahrum kal\u0131nan gelir kayb\u0131n\u0131n hatal\u0131 hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mahkemenin ke\u015fif yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmesine ra\u011fmen mahallinde bir ke\u015fif yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesine ra\u011fmen reddedilen b\u00f6l\u00fcm bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kendileri yarar\u0131na vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmedi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n talebi TL iken bunun Euro’ya \u00e7evrilip kur hesab\u0131 yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin sorumlulu\u011fu %20 iken harc\u0131n tamam\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulmas\u0131n\u0131n hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek, karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile davac\u0131n\u0131n kusurlu kabul edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131nda ve davac\u0131ya verilen kusur oran\u0131nda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, daval\u0131lardan … Fabrikalar\u0131 A.\u015e’nin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan zarardan kusursuz olarak sorumlu oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fi i\u00e7in gerekli g\u00fcvenlik \u00f6nlemlerinin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 yap\u0131 maliki bak\u0131m\u0131ndan nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortadan kald\u0131racak nitelikte bir olgunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da kan\u0131tlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131lardan …’\u0131n s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fini \u00fc\u00e7 ortak yapt\u0131klar\u0131 \u015feklindeki beyanlar\u0131, daval\u0131lardan …’\u0131n olay tarihinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma sahas\u0131nda oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla birlikte an\u0131lan daval\u0131n\u0131n ve … Demir San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti firmas\u0131n\u0131n davaya konu s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fine kat\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak daval\u0131lardan …’\u0131n kaza tarihinde olay yerinde olmas\u0131 ve soru\u015fturma a\u015famas\u0131ndaki tespitler birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015finin daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan birlikte yap\u0131lmakta oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131lar\u0131n da zarardan sorumlu tutulmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, daval\u0131lardan …’\u0131n olay tarihinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma sahas\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu, vin\u00e7 operat\u00f6r\u00fcne y\u00fck\u00fcn kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde talimat verdi\u011fi, olayda kusuru bulundu\u011fundan sorumlulu\u011funa gidilmesi gerekti\u011fi, istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvuran daval\u0131lar\u0131n gerekli \u00f6nlemlerin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamadan i\u015fe ba\u015flad\u0131klar\u0131, daval\u0131lar\u0131n sorumlu kabul edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131nda hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, dava dilek\u00e7esindeki talep sonucu g\u00f6zetilmeksizin T\u00fcrk Liras\u0131 cinsinden tamir bedeli talep edilmesine ra\u011fmen Avro cinsinden tamir bedeline h\u00fckmedilmesi, Avro cinsinden tazminat i\u00e7in T\u00fcrk Liras\u0131 cinsinden tazminatlarda uygulanan yasal faize h\u00fckmedilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131lar\u0131n tespit edilen zarar\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n kusuru d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan k\u0131sm\u0131ndan m\u00fcteselsilen sorumlu tutulmalar\u0131 gerekirken, kusurlar\u0131 oran\u0131nda sorumluluklar\u0131na gidilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ve 146.116,00 TL tamir bedeli, 25.000,00 TL tamir s\u00fcresince gelir kayb\u0131 olmak \u00fczere toplam 171.116,00 TL tazminat\u0131n olay tarihi olan 21.12.2011 tarihinden i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsili ile davac\u0131ya verilmesine, davac\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fer kayb\u0131 talebinin reddine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. TEMY\u0130Z<\/p>\n
A. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraflar vekilleri temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri<\/p>\n
1.Davac\u0131 vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; hem tespit dosyas\u0131nda hem de ald\u0131r\u0131lan t\u00fcm raporlarda vin\u00e7lerin men\u015fei Avrupa olup Euro \u00fczerinden i\u015flem g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, malzeme ve yedek par\u00e7a tedarikinin euro \u00fczerinden \u00f6dendi\u011fini, Euro \u00fczerinden karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fini, hasar g\u00f6ren vincin de\u011fer kayb\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekirken talebin gerek\u00e7esiz reddedildi\u011fini, Gebze 2. Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi’nin 2011\/172 D.\u0130\u015f say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile tespit edildi\u011fi \u00fczere 200.000,00 TL de\u011fer kayb\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011funu, talep edilen faiz ticari faiz olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen yasal faize h\u00fckmedilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek, karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Daval\u0131lar … Mak. Ga. Dol. San. Ve Nakl. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti ve … vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde, kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde davac\u0131n\u0131n kusurlu oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n … g\u00f6revlendirmedi\u011fini, tartma \u00f6zelli\u011fi olmayan vinci kiraya verdi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkillerinin davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131na emir ve talimat verme yetkisi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 olan vin\u00e7 operat\u00f6r\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fck\u00fcn vince ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava k\u0131smi alacak davas\u0131 olup kaza tarihi olan 21.10.2011 tarihinden dava tarihi itibariyle haks\u0131z fiil zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcreleri ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep etti\u011fi rakamlar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda t\u00fcm alacak iddialar\u0131n\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, karar\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Daval\u0131 … Tekstil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkilinin di\u011fer daval\u0131 … Mak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin eser s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, alt i\u015fveren \u00fcst i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sorumlulu\u011fun m\u00fcteahhide ait oldu\u011funu, bilirki\u015fi raporunda m\u00fcvekkilinin dava konusu zarardan sorumlulu\u011fun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin davac\u0131 ve di\u011fer daval\u0131lar ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkisine girmedi\u011fini, bu i\u015fte i\u015f\u00e7i \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin anahtar teslimi i\u015fi … Mak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.ne veren i\u015f sahibi oldu\u011funu, i\u015fi kontrol ve denetim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, raporda vincin asl\u0131na uygun onar\u0131m bedelinin 362.001,00 Euro oldu\u011funun belirtilmedi\u011fini, de\u011fi\u015fik i\u015f dosyas\u0131nda al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporuna itiraz edildi\u011fini, kesinle\u015fmeyen ve delil niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mayan raporun esas al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Euro’nun kur hesab\u0131n\u0131n 09.03.2020 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Daval\u0131lar … Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. ve … vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; \u00f6len … operat\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcn yak\u0131nlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan davada m\u00fcvekillerine y\u00f6neltilmi\u015f bir kusur bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu davan\u0131n m\u00fcvekkillerine kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, vincin t\u00fcm sevk, idare ve kontrol y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn davac\u0131da oldu\u011funu, … g\u00f6revlendirmedi\u011fini, tartma \u00f6zelli\u011fi olmayan vinci kiraya verdi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 olan vin\u00e7 operat\u00f6r\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan y\u00fck\u00fcn vince ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinin s\u00f6k\u00fcm sahas\u0131nda olmas\u0131n\u0131n meydana gelen kazada kusurlar\u0131 oldu\u011fu anlam\u0131na gelmedi\u011fini, di\u011fer daval\u0131lar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden vin\u00e7 operat\u00f6r\u00fcne talimat verdi\u011fine dair ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen iddialar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilleri i\u00e7in ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekillerinin s\u00f6k\u00fcm i\u015fi ile ilgili s\u00f6zle\u015fmesel ili\u015fki i\u00e7inde dahi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n k\u0131smi alacak davas\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu a\u015famadan sonra yap\u0131lacak \u0131slah\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 itiraz\u0131nda bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131, kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n kusurlu hareketinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerinin meydana gelen kazan\u0131n olu\u015fumunda herhangi bir kusurlar\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, karar\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Daval\u0131 … Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret A.\u015e vekili temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin faaliyet alan\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7elik konstr\u00fcksiyonlar\u0131n s\u00f6k\u00fcm\u00fc, ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 nakliyesi gibi i\u015fler olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z konusu i\u015fte de kontrol denetimi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kaza sahas\u0131nda yap\u0131lan i\u015fin y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fclmesi ile ilgili teknik bilgisinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu husustaki t\u00fcm tasarruflar\u0131 Hurda Sat\u0131\u015f S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile y\u00fcklenici … Tekstil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.ne b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hurda niteli\u011finde olan ilgili metruk yap\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131m s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile … Tekstil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti.ne devredildi\u011finden m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131 yap\u0131n\u0131n maliki olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kazan\u0131n eski malik olan m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketi ba\u011flayan bir yap\u0131 bozuklu\u011fu veya bak\u0131m eksikli\u011fi sebebiyle meydana gelmedi\u011fini, kazan\u0131n vin\u00e7 yetkililerinin ve y\u00fcklenici daval\u0131 \u015firketin yap\u0131lan i\u015fteki teknik eksiklikleri ve kald\u0131r\u0131lacak y\u00fckte kullan\u0131lacak ara\u00e7lar\u0131n yetersizli\u011fi sonucu meydana geldi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketle yap\u0131 malikinin sorumlulu\u011fu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kurulabilecek illiyet ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, karar\u0131n aleyhlerine olan k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e<\/p>\n
1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme<\/p>\n
Dava, tazminat istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Hukuk<\/p>\n
6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanununun 369 ncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131, 370 ve 371 nci maddeleri, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 69 ncu maddesi.<\/p>\n
3.De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
1.Taraflar\u0131n iddia, savunma ve dayand\u0131klar\u0131 belgelere, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuki nitelendirilmesi ile uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131na, dava \u015fartlar\u0131na, yarg\u0131lamaya h\u00e2kim olan ilkelere, ispat kurallar\u0131na ve temyiz olunan kararda belirtilen gerek\u00e7elere g\u00f6re, davac\u0131 vekilinin a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki 7 numaral\u0131 bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Daval\u0131lar\u0131n temyizinin incelenmesinde; Bor\u00e7lar hukukuna esas te\u015fkil eden en \u00f6nemli ilkelerden biri olan bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkilerinin nisbili\u011fi ilkesi gere\u011fince, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkisine kat\u0131lmayan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiyi herhangi bir bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin bor\u00e7lusu durumuna getiremezler. Bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinden do\u011fan alacak haklar\u0131 kural olarak, sadece bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin di\u011fer taraf\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilen haklar olduklar\u0131ndan bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin taraf\u0131 olmayan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere kar\u015f\u0131, alacak hakk\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclemeyece\u011fi gibi bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin taraf\u0131 olmayan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filer de bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisine dayanarak bor\u00e7luya kar\u015f\u0131 bir hak talebinde bulunamazlar.<\/p>\n
3. Dava konusu somut olayda davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 … Mak. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. aras\u0131nda s\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak operat\u00f6rl\u00fc vin\u00e7 kiralama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda vincin zarar g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc eldeki bu davan\u0131n da vin\u00e7te meydana gelen zararlar nedeniyle a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda ihtilaf bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda bir zarar\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi belirtilerek tahsili talep edildi\u011fine g\u00f6re, taraflar\u0131n sorumlulu\u011fu kusur durumu ve tazminat bedeli buna g\u00f6re belirlenmesi gerekir. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki ki\u015filerin s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkisi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda haks\u0131z fiil gibi zarara sebep olan ayr\u0131 bir dahilinin bulunmamas\u0131 durumunda sorumluluklar\u0131na gidilemez. \u00d6rne\u011fin … Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti. yetkilisinin a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u015fekilde s\u00f6zle\u015fme ili\u015fkisini de ortadan kald\u0131racak \u015fekilde zarara sebep olacak sorumlulu\u011fu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan daval\u0131 …nin sorumlulu\u011funa gidilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
4. 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 69 uncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 h\u00fckm\u00fcne g\u00f6re; “Bir binan\u0131n veya di\u011fer yap\u0131 eserlerinin maliki, bunlar\u0131n yap\u0131m\u0131ndaki bozukluklardan veya bak\u0131m\u0131ndaki eksikliklerden do\u011fan zarar\u0131 gidermekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.” denmektedir. Bu madde uyar\u0131nca bina malikinin sorumlulu\u011funa gidilebilmesi i\u00e7in binan\u0131n yap\u0131m ve bak\u0131m eksikli\u011finden kaynakl\u0131 sorumlulu\u011fu bulunmas\u0131 gerekir. Dava konusu olayda vin\u00e7te meydana gelen zarar\u0131n do\u011fumunda binan\u0131n yap\u0131m\u0131 ve bak\u0131m eksiklikli\u011fine dayanan kusursuz sorumlulu\u011funun uygulanma yeri bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenle, daval\u0131 … Demir \u015firketinin sorumlulu\u011funa gidilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. Di\u011fer y\u00f6nden davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde, m\u00fcvekkilinin zarar\u0131n\u0131n 371.116,00 TL oldu\u011funu, bu bedelin de 146.116,00 TL’sinin tamir bedeli, 25.000,00 TL’sinin tamirde ge\u00e7ecek s\u00fcrede olu\u015facak gelir kayb\u0131, 200.000,00 TL’sinin ise de\u011fer kayb\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015f bu bedel \u00fczerinden tazminat talep etmi\u015ftir. Dosyada al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a talep edilmedi\u011fi halde Euro cinsinden tazminat hesaplamas\u0131 yap\u0131larak 362.001,00 Euro tamir bedeli vincin tamir edilmesi i\u00e7in uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince bu bedelden davac\u0131n\u0131n kusur oran\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclerek TL cinsinden kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 esas al\u0131narak karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava konusu somut olayda TL d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki para cinsiyle tazminat talebinin yeri olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi b\u00f6yle bir talep de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat isteminin Euro cinsinden de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve bunun TL’ye \u00e7evrilerek taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 karar verilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. Yukar\u0131da yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar dikkate al\u0131narak kusur ve zarar hesaplanarak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. Davac\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinde; davac\u0131 taraf dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep etti\u011fi alaca\u011f\u0131na ticari avans faizi talep etmi\u015f olup taraflar\u0131n tacir olmas\u0131 nedeniyle avans faize h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yasal faize h\u00fckmedilmesi do\u011fru olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
VI. KARAR<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle;<\/p>\n
1-) Yukar\u0131da (3.1) numaral\u0131 bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle davac\u0131 vekilinin di\u011fer temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddine,<\/p>\n
2-) Yukar\u0131da (3.2., 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) numaral\u0131 bentlerle a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle daval\u0131lar vekillerinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile (3.7) numaral\u0131 bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeple davac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile temyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
Pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz har\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n istek h\u00e2linde ilgililere iadesine,<\/p>\n
Dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n
22.04.2024 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
legalbank.net<\/p>\n
\u200bDAVA D\u0130LEK\u00c7ES\u0130NDE, M\u00dcVEKK\u0130L\u0130N\u0130N ZARARININ T\u00dcRK L\u0130RASI OLARAK TALEP ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130 – B\u0130L\u0130RK\u0130\u015e\u0130 RAPORLARINDA DAVACI TARAF\u00c7A TALEP ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130 HALDE EURO C\u0130NS\u0130NDEN TAZM\u0130NAT HESAPLAMASI YAPILDI\u011eI – T\u00dcRK L\u0130RASI DI\u015eINDAK\u0130 PARA C\u0130NS\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT TALEB\u0130N\u0130N YER\u0130 OLMADI\u011eI G\u0130B\u0130 B\u00d6YLE B\u0130R TALEP DE OLMADI\u011eI\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. YARGITAY 6. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 Esas Numaras\u0131: 2024\/137 Karar Numaras\u0131: 2024\/1011 Karar Tarihi: 22.04.2024 V\u0130N\u00c7LER\u0130N HASARA U\u011eRAMASI NEDEN\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT \u0130STEM\u0130 V\u0130N\u00c7LER\u0130N AVRUPA MEN\u015eEL\u0130 OLUP EURO \u00dcZER\u0130NDEN \u0130\u015eLEM G\u00d6RD\u00dc\u011e\u00dc DAVA D\u0130LEK\u00c7ES\u0130NDE, M\u00dcVEKK\u0130L\u0130N\u0130N ZARARININ T\u00dcRK L\u0130RASI OLARAK TALEP ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130 B\u0130L\u0130RK\u0130\u015e\u0130 RAPORLARINDA DAVACI TARAF\u00c7A TALEP ED\u0130LMED\u0130\u011e\u0130 HALDE EURO C\u0130NS\u0130NDEN TAZM\u0130NAT HESAPLAMASI YAPILDI\u011eI T\u00dcRK L\u0130RASI DI\u015eINDAK\u0130 PARA C\u0130NS\u0130YLE TAZM\u0130NAT TALEB\u0130N\u0130N YER\u0130 OLMADI\u011eI G\u0130B\u0130 B\u00d6YLE B\u0130R TALEP DE OLMADI\u011eI TALEPLE BA\u011eLILIK \u0130LKES\u0130 \u00d6ZET\u0130: Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde, m\u00fcvekkilinin zarar\u0131n\u0131n \u2026 TL oldu\u011funu, bu bedelin de \u2026.. TL’sinin tamir bedeli, \u2026TL’sinin tamirde ge\u00e7ecek s\u00fcrede olu\u015facak gelir kayb\u0131, \u2026. TL’sinin ise de\u011fer kayb\u0131 oldu\u011funu bildirmi\u015f bu bedel \u00fczerinden tazminat talep etmi\u015ftir. Dosyada al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131nda davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a talep edilmedi\u011fi halde Euro cinsinden tazminat hesaplamas\u0131 yap\u0131larak \u2026. Euro tamir bedeli vincin tamir edilmesi i\u00e7in uygun oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince bu bedelden davac\u0131n\u0131n kusur oran\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclerek TL cinsinden kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 esas al\u0131narak karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dava konusu somut olayda TL d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki para cinsiyle tazminat talebinin yeri olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi b\u00f6yle bir talep de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan tazminat isteminin Euro cinsinden de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve bunun TL’ye \u00e7evrilerek taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 karar verilmesi hatal\u0131 olup, kusur ve zarar hesaplanarak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekir. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 : Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi …<\/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-35495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n