T.C.
SUPREME
17. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Basis No: 2015/4359 Decision No: 2012/6111 D. Date: 14.5.2012

Attorney of the plaintiff, his client’s wife M.H. the defendant died in a one-sided accident while driving a traffic-insured vehicle, stating that they lacked support. for breeding increased by £ 22,308. 62, daughter M. for £ 8,818. 37 and son V. he requested that the defendant decide to collect the burial costs of US $ 250.00,including us $ 8,628.01, and waived the claim for the burial costs during the trial.

The defendant’s attorney argued that they were liable for actual damages at the rate of defect and the policy limit.

According to the evidence collected by the court and the expert report adopted, it is understood that Muris is fully defective in the accident that occurred, that the operator and therefore the defendant’s insurance company are responsible for the loss of support of the claimants in the position of a third party, and that the case is partially accepted by the claimant H. for £ 8,623. 01, M. for £ 8,818. 37 and V. a total of us $ 39,750.00,including us $ 8,623. 01,was decided to collect from the defendant along with interest in compensation for lack of support, the request for burial expenses was rejected due to a waiver; the provision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

In the case of the information and documents in the file, in the justification of the court decision, in the discussion and evaluation of The based evidence, in particular, the calculation of support compensation specified in the actuarial expert report organized in accordance with the formation of irregularities in the basis of the provision, that the plaintiffs are suing as a third party deprived of support, not as the sole heir of the deceased, that the defect in the formation of loss of support caused directly by the plaintiffs due to death cannot be reflected in the plaintiffs; therefore, if the driver or operator becomes defective vehicle full, 2918 Numbered Highway Traffic Act and highways according to the general terms of motor vehicle liability insurance, the vehicle’s liability insurer, defendant insurance company, has guaranteed the operator and damage to third parties operate or in the event that full drive is flawed, even if deprived of support, the damaged party is located at the third position in the plaintiff since the defendant insurance company that will be responsible for (15.6.2011 of day and HGK 2011/17-142 main-411 decided, According to hgk’s 22.2.2012 day 2011/17-787 in accordance with the 2012/92 decision no.), it was unanimously decided on 14.5.2012 day to reject all appeals that were not seen in place of the defendant’s attorney and to approve the provision found in accordance with the procedure and law and to receive the breakdown written below.