The issue that should be examined first regarding compulsory traffic insurance is; It is a matter of determining who will be accepted as the operator in accordance with the Highway Traffic Law. Operated in accordance with the Highway Traffic Law; It is the person who owns the vehicle or is registered as a buyer in the sale, provided that the ownership is preserved, or is the person who takes the vehicle as a tenant, loan or pledge in cases such as long-term rental, loan or pledge of the vehicle. However, if it is proven that another person operates the vehicle on his own account and at his own risk and has actual control over the vehicle, this person is deemed to be the operator.

In case of a traffic accident, the liability of the operator will come to the fore. If the operation of a motor vehicle causes death or injury to a person or damage to something, and if the motor vehicle is operated under the title or business name of an enterprise or with a ticket issued by this enterprise, the operator of the motor vehicle and the owner of the enterprise to which it is affiliated are jointly and severally liable for the resulting damage. The operator or the owner of the enterprise to which the vehicle operator is affiliated shall be relieved of liability if he proves that the accident was caused by a force majeure or the serious fault of the injured party or a third party, without any fault on his part or the persons for whose actions he is held responsible, and without a defect in the vehicle affecting the accident.

In addition, if more than one person is liable for compensation due to the damage suffered by a third party in an accident involving a motor vehicle, they are held severally liable. If one of the operators suffers physical damage in an accident involving more than one motor vehicle, the operators of the vehicles involved in the accident and the enterprise owners to which the vehicle operator is affiliated are obliged to compensate for the damage in proportion to their fault, unless special circumstances and especially operating hazards justify sharing otherwise.

Operators are required to have liability insurance to cover third party damages in case of possible traffic accidents. It should be noted that within the scope of compulsory liability insurance, only the damages of injured third parties are covered. Regarding the subject, the decision of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Mertis No. 2016/7183 and Decision No. 2017/11855, is as follows;

In the concrete case, the plaintiff, who was a passenger in the same vehicle, was injured as a result of a one-sided traffic accident that occurred while the vehicle of which the plaintiff was the owner and the defendant was the compulsory traffic insurer was being used by a person outside the case, and the plaintiff passenger, who was the operator and insured, requested financial compensation from his compulsory traffic insurance company due to his physical damage. The court decided to accept the case. However, in the light of the above explanations, the purpose of compulsory traffic insurance is to guarantee the damages caused to third parties as a result of traffic accidents. In Article 92 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 and Article A.3.b of the General Conditions of Highways Motor Vehicles Compulsory Liability Insurance, it is stipulated that “compensation claims made by the operator will be excluded from the scope of coverage. Accordingly, the plaintiff who is the operator is the defendant who assumes his own responsibility as the operator.” It is not possible to claim compensation from the compulsory traffic insurer, since the compulsory traffic insurer guarantees the damages caused by the operator to third parties and the plaintiff operator is not the third party damaged by the defendant company, the plaintiff operator’s request for material compensation for the physical damage is rejected. Failure to observe that the decision should be made was not correct and required reversal.

As can be clearly understood from the Supreme Court decision, the damages suffered by the operator are not covered by compulsory liability insurance. In addition, the Law clearly regulates the cases in which damage is not covered by compulsory liability insurance. According to the Law;

a) The operator; Requests it may make against persons held responsible for their actions in accordance with this Law,

b) The operator; Claims they may make due to damages to the property of their spouse, descendants, those related to them through adoption, and their siblings with whom they live together,

c) The operator; Claims for damages to things for which it is not held liable under this Law,

d) Claims arising from accidents in motor vehicle races or racing trials to be held under the guarantee of compulsory liability insurance in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 105 of this Law,

e) Damages to the goods carried in the motor vehicle,

f) Claims for non-pecuniary damages.

g) Claims for compensation arising from the right holder’s own fault,

h) Claims of the relevant parties that are not within the scope of the insured’s liability risk,

j) Claims for compensation of the beneficiary who is deprived of support due to the fault of the support person,

k) Indirect damages such as loss of income, loss of profit, business interruption and loss of rent,

l) Claims for compensation for loss of value of vehicles that have been withdrawn from traffic or scrapped due to damage,

m) Claims for compensation arising from vehicles used in terrorist acts within the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713 dated 12/4/1991 and sabotage arising from these acts and which are not within the scope of the insured’s liability risk, and claims of persons who got into the vehicle knowing that it was used or would be used in terrorist acts and those who took part in acts of terrorism and sabotage. Claims regarding damages suffered by persons receiving

It is outside the scope of compulsory liability insurance. Regarding the subject, the 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Merits No. 2015/16058 and Decision No. 2018/8335;

In the Highway Traffic Law, in addition to the scope of liability regarding compulsory traffic insurance, the situations outside this scope are also clearly regulated. Here, no analogy is used; Situations for which we are not responsible are listed one by one and in a limited manner. In the concrete case, the plaintiff… Güler, who was the owner of the vehicle and was driving the vehicle for which the defendant was the compulsory traffic insurer, died as a result of a one-sided traffic accident, and the operator, the insured plaintiff father… Güler requested compensation for loss of support from his own compulsory traffic… company. , the court decided to accept the case for this plaintiff as well. … in the light of the above explanations, the purpose of compulsory traffic insurance is to guarantee the damages caused to third parties as a result of traffic accidents. Article 92 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 and Article A.3.b of the Highways Motor Vehicles Compulsory Liability Insurance General Conditions stipulate that “compensation claims to be made by the operator” will be excluded from the coverage. Accordingly, it is not possible for the plaintiff, the operator, to claim compensation from the defendant compulsory traffic insurer, which assumes its own liability as the operator. Since the compulsory traffic insurer guarantees the damages caused by the operator to third parties and the plaintiff operator … is not a third party who suffered damage against the defendant company …, it is not correct to ignore the fact that the compensation for loss of support requested by the plaintiff operator should be rejected. required breaking.

In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the operator’s request for compensation for loss of support is one of the cases excluded from the scope of compulsory liability insurance in the Law. The Supreme Court ruled that since the operator is not a third party, the claims made by the operator are not within the scope of compulsory liability insurance in accordance with the express provision of the Law.

REFERENCE

The Decision of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Mertis No. 2016/7183 and Decision No. 2017/11855

The 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Merits No. 2015/16058 and Decision No. 2018/8335

Highway Traffic Law and Related Legislation