T.C.
SUPREME CORT
11. law office
Base No:2012/10984 Decision No:2014/2469 K. Date:13.2.2014

In the case dec between the parties, Antalya 1. A judicial review of the decision No. 08/12/2011 and 2007/4-2011/481 issued by the Commercial Court of First Instance was requested by the deputy plaintiff, and on 11.02.2014, determined for the hearing, it was understood that there was no other arrival by polling and the defendant’s deputy Av, who was present. M. He. after being listened to, due to the intensity and time constraints of the trial work, the work was examined and decided was left forward. After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge and again reading and reviewing the petition, appeals, trial minutes and all documents in the file, the need for the job was discussed and considered:

9 of the agency agreement drawn up between the plaintiff’s dec, the defendant and the agency where the insurance premium subject to the claim is deposited. in accordance with the article, pension policies and other life insurance subject to dividends are collected from insured persons on the first working day after the day of collection of pei’s assets by a cash company or A. Pension A.Sh. claiming that he had to make a deposit by on-line wire transfer to one of the bank accounts registered in his name, that he had not supervised his agent by not fulfilling the defendant’s performance, whether he had issued a policy or not, and that he had not paid the amount of the premium deposited, he also filed an unfair objection against the enforcement proceedings, he requested and sued that the defendant’s follow-up appeal be cancelled and the continuation of the follow-up and the enforcement denial compensation be decided.

The defendant’s attorney stated that there was no contract made between the plaintiff and his client, as well as no application form that contained a request for money paid to the client’s company and insurance for the purpose of making an insurance policy by the plaintiff, dec plaintiff’s agent E. B. arguing that the money deposited in his account had nothing to do with his client’s company, and that it could not be proved that the money allegedly paid to the agent was paid in accordance with the insurance policy, he asked for the dismissal of the case.

19 of the Regulation No. 24681 on Private Pension Intermediaries in force at the time of payment to the subject of the case in accordance with the scope of the claim, defense, expert report and the entire file filed by the court. article 23 of the Regulation on Private Pension Intermediation No. 25391, which repealed this Regulation. individual retirement of the agent in the item by no means entrance fee, contribution or similar, whether he can under the name of the collection is laid out, also with the defendant in such an agency agreement between the agent does not have authority, agents also stated that in the event the case is the subject of the agency, the defendant insurance company of money that is deposited into the account is not transferred to the account in question for the convention cannot be established, therefore, in the matter of refund of the money that it receives from unauthorized agents that are not the responsibility of the defendant upon the conclusion of the case is dismissed. The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.The case concerns the request to collect the premium payment made to the agent from the respondent insurance company.The plaintiff asked for the refund of the money deposited by the defendant, claiming that although the defendant had paid a premium in order to issue an insurance policy to the authorized agent’s account, the defendant had not issued a policy nor had he returned his money.

The case of the defendant on the date of payment subject to a lawsuit in activity as agents of out-of-Emrullah Ridge agency that money sent to the account except for the purpose of paying premiums for any other purpose, such as the absence of evidence in the file that is sent to the agent according to the nature of life insurance payment will be made in order to ensure the establishment of a relationship out of it by suggesting that that are made for a purpose and must be proven.The plaintiff in the concrete case, he paid a total of TL 30,079.65 to the non-litigation agent account.1. Regarding the “Powers and Responsibilities of the Agent” of the Agency Agreement between the respondent and the decommissioned agent. in the article, it is stated that the agent is authorized to work with the agency power of attorney in the Life and Personal Accident Insurance branches that are the subject of the company’s participation, to receive insurance offers, to collect premium advances in relation to these offers, 9. in the article, the agent is not authorized to collect insurance premiums, premium advances (pey akçesi) collected from insured persons in pension policies and other life insurance subject to dividends are collected by the company in cash no later than 12.00 noon on the first business day after the day of collection or by A. Pension A.Sh. it is regulated that he is obliged to make a deposit by on-line transfer to one of the bank accounts registered in his name. In this case, from the case where the advance premium authorized agents, insurance premium payment by the plaintiff for any purpose other than the establishment of the relationship that was made in order to ensure payments are made unless it can be proven, the defendant was charged the money to be transferred to the company with the internal agency relationship between the companies that are not ilgilendirip the defendant, and the defendant insurance company to the authorized agencies of this issue in the process of relying proposed defendant against the plaintiff for payment to the agent of the insurance company, the possible lack of responsibility when the decision should be made, the decision to dismiss the case on written grounds was not considered correct, and the decision had to be overturned for the benefit of the plaintiff for this reason.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 13.02.2014 that the decision should be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the plaintiff by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney, and that the appeal fee he paid should be returned to the appellant at his request.

You can read other articles from clicking here