T.C. SUPREME
11.Legal Department
Basis: 2003/13739
Verdict: 2004/8533
Decision Date: 20.09.2004

Case: Şereflikoçhisar First Instance in the case seen between the parties 2.Examination of the decision no. 2002/98-2003/107 of 26.06.2003 issued by the court of Cassation by the court of Cassation was requested by the deputy plaintiff and the defendant cooperative and a number of defendants deputies and it was understood that the appeal was granted within the period of the petition, after hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge Ata Durak for the case file and:

Decision: the attorney of the plaintiff said that in order for the defendant cooperative to receive loans from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, in accordance with Article 3 of the Cooperative Agreement and Article 8 of the partners agreement, it is necessary to insure the cattle purchased to distribute to its partners for a period of one year, the defendant cooperative and its, claiming that the defendants, in spite of this, avoided paying the insurance premium debts and that the execution proceedings initiated in this matter were stopped as a result of the wrongful objection of the defendants, he demanded and sued the collection of 40% execution-denial compensation from the defendants with the cancellation of the defendants ‘ objections.

The defendant co-operative and a number of defendants ‘ attorneys requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that no insurance contract was signed between the client and the plaintiff, and also demanded and sued the claimant for the collection of 40% malfeasance compensation.

On the basis of the evidence gathered, the court decided to reject the claim of the plaintiff and the defendant’s claim for damages for misconduct, which could not be proved on the grounds that there was no written document indicating that an insurance contract had been entered into between the parties and that the conditions for compensation for malfeasance had not been established.

The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff and the co-operative of the defendant and a number of acting defendants.

1-according to the information and documents contained in the case file, there was no procedural or legal direction in discussing and evaluating the evidence based on the reason of the court’s decision, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all appeals that were not seen in the case of the deputy of the defendants.

2-as for the appeal appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, Article 11/h of the regulation on state aid to the investment activities of Agricultural Cooperatives published in the official gazette dated 30.04.1990 from the examination of the information and documents in the file, T.C. Z. Protocol between the Ministry of Agriculture and rural affairs with the bank referred to the bank’s general letter No. 5797 31.08.1999 date and the provisions of the cooperative agreement in accordance with Article 8 of the agreement and the partners of 3, the animals paid the price of the insurance requirement should be fulfilled davalilarca, A. B Insurance agent of the plaintiff residesP. General Directorate T.C. Z. Upon informing the Bank Şereflikoçhisar Branch Directorate that the cows belonging to the defendants are under insurance coverage, it is understood that payment was made to the defendants by the aforementioned bank, and insurance coverage was started by issuing policies for the benefit of the defendants separately by the plaintiff agency.

TTK.according to Article 1263 of the insurance contract is not a form-related contract. For this reason, insurance policies are not a requirement for the validity of the contract, but merely a means of proof showing the rights and obligations of the parties. A lot of the documents described above are in the file and credit was taken by the defendants based on these documents. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s policy arrangement without the defendants ‘ application is also contrary to the usual course of life. In this case, it is accepted that a valid insurance contract has been established between the parties by the court and that the amount of the claim that the claimant can claim should be determined and decided according to the result, while the provision in written form was not correct and required to be annulled.

Conclusion: for the reasons described in Paragraph ( 1 )above, the rejection of all appeals by the attorney of the plaintiffs, for the reasons described in Paragraph ( 2), the rejection of the decision for the benefit of the plaintiff by the acceptance of Appeals by the attorney of the plaintiff, the balance below is 2.220,000.- a unanimous decision was made on 20.09.2004 to take the fee from the appellant co-operative and some of the defendants, and to return the advance fee paid to the appellant at the request of the appellant.