Hundreds of traffic accidents occur every day in our country. According to Article 3 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, “A traffic accident is an event involving one or more vehicles in motion on the road resulting in death, injury, or damage.” These accidents cause both loss of life and property. The losses resulting from traffic accidents lead to various grievances for individuals. To prevent the violation of people’s interests and avoid loss of rights, our legal system provides various means of seeking rights. One of these means is the claim for compensation for replacement vehicle costs in traffic accidents.
As a result of traffic accidents, vehicles usually suffer material damage and require repairs, rendering many vehicles unusable for a period of time. The inability to use a vehicle during its repair period violates the individual’s interest in using their vehicle. Therefore, the situation of a person who experiences a traffic accident and cannot use their vehicle for a certain period is attempted to be remedied under our law through the compensation for replacement vehicle costs.
Compensation for replacement vehicle costs is a financial indemnity paid to the person, assuming that they rented a vehicle for the period during which their damaged vehicle is undergoing maintenance and repair due to the traffic accident. This way, the party involved in the accident can claim the loss suffered due to the inability to use their vehicle from the other party involved in the accident.
Who Is Responsible for Paying the Replacement Vehicle Cost Claim?
The party requesting compensation for the replacement vehicle cost in a traffic accident can claim this compensation in proportion to their innocence. In other words, the replacement vehicle cost is sought from the party at fault in the traffic accident. A person who files a claim for replacement vehicle cost compensation cannot demand this compensation from the compulsory insurance company. This is because compulsory insurance companies do not provide coverage for damages resulting from the inability to use the vehicle. The replacement vehicle cost claim is not for the primary damages caused by the accident but rather for a consequential damage arising from the primary damage, and the coverage provided by insurance companies applies to the primary damages resulting from the accident. Similarly, the replacement vehicle cost claim cannot be made against the insurance of the at-fault party nor is it paid by the opposing party’s insurance. Therefore, the person who suffers a loss due to being unable to use their vehicle because of the traffic accident can claim this loss from the driver or owner of the at-fault vehicle. The vehicle driver and owner are jointly and severally liable for the settlement of the replacement vehicle cost claim.
It does not matter whether the damage suffered by the party who cannot use their vehicle due to the traffic accident is covered by their comprehensive insurance (kasko). Therefore, even if the damage related to the vehicle is covered by the person’s comprehensive insurance, the injured party can still claim compensation for the hardship they experienced due to not being able to use their vehicle.
Calculation of the Replacement Vehicle Cost Claim
Factors to be considered when calculating the replacement vehicle cost:
1- The duration of the vehicle’s maintenance and repair
2- The daily rental cost of the replacement vehicle
When making the calculation, these two factors must be taken into account. The replacement vehicle cost is the result of multiplying the vehicle’s maintenance and repair duration by the daily rental cost of the replacement vehicle. However, there is an important point to consider here. The maintenance and repair period must be calculated based on a reasonable duration. Otherwise, the repair time may exceed the reasonable period, and if this extended time is taken into account, it could create a disadvantage for the party responsible for paying the replacement vehicle cost.
When calculating the daily rental cost of the replacement vehicle, factors such as the vehicle’s make, model, and age are considered, and the daily rental cost is determined based on the market value of a comparable vehicle.
In conclusion, when calculating the replacement vehicle cost claim, the court decides that the compensation is to be paid to the person deprived of using their vehicle by the at-fault driver or vehicle owner, by multiplying the reasonable maintenance and repair period determined by the judge with the daily rental cost based on the vehicle’s market value.
Jurisdiction and Competent Court for Replacement Vehicle Cost Claims
A person who is deprived of using their vehicle as a result of a traffic accident can file a lawsuit petition to the civil court of first instance to claim compensation from the party at fault in the traffic accident. The competent court for replacement vehicle cost claims is the civil court of first instance. The person seeking replacement vehicle cost compensation can directly file their claim with the court without applying for mediation.
Statute of Limitations for Replacement Vehicle Cost Claims
The party wishing to claim replacement vehicle cost compensation must file their claim with the civil court of first instance within two years starting from the date of the accident. This two-year period beginning from the date of the accident is a forfeiture period. In other words, if the person claiming the replacement vehicle cost compensation exceeds this two-year forfeiture period, they will lose the right to claim compensation arising from the traffic accident.
Proof of the Replacement Vehicle Cost Claim
A person whose vehicle was damaged after a mutual traffic accident and who cannot use their vehicle due to it being under maintenance and repair can claim compensation for the loss suffered during this period from the party at fault in the accident through a lawsuit. After the lawsuit is filed, the injured party must submit certain documents if they have them. These documents include:
Expert reports and similar documents (which can be obtained later during the litigation process)
The claim for replacement vehicle cost compensation is a type of indemnity that can be requested within the scope of the tort provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations. According to the Code of Obligations, a person who causes an unlawful or illegal act due to their fault is obliged to remedy this act. As a general rule, when compensation for damage is sought, the burden of proof regarding the damage lies with the injured party, that is, the person requesting compensation. However, if the damage cannot be fully proven with documents, the judge may award reasonable compensation based on the circumstances of the case.
In a case filed regarding a claim for replacement vehicle cost, the judge rejected the claim due to the absence of documents proving that the claimant rented a vehicle. This rejection is not a lawful decision. Because even if the claimant does not provide documents regarding vehicle rental, the judge can determine the reasonable duration needed for maintenance and repair and the daily rental cost based on the market value of the vehicle through investigations carried out by the court to calculate the amount of the replacement vehicle cost compensation resulting from the accident.
Photos of the vehicle after the accident
Accident report (if not available, reports prepared by judicial authorities or other documents)
Service invoice for the vehicle (if available, not mandatory)
Photos of the vehicle after maintenance and repair (if available, not mandatory)
Is It Mandatory to Rent a Vehicle to Claim Compensation for Replacement Vehicle Costs?
According to the decision of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated January 24, 2023, published in the Official Gazette, case number 2021/26777 E., 2022/11236 K., and dated September 29, 2022, the local court’s decision was overturned because it was based on the reasoning that no document proving vehicle rental was submitted to the court for the replacement vehicle cost claim. According to this decision of the Court of Cassation, the party claiming the replacement vehicle cost compensation is entitled to receive compensation even if they do not submit any document proving that they rented a vehicle to the court. The court’s determination of the amount of the replacement vehicle cost compensation due to the traffic accident is not dependent on the vehicle rental document. The judge can determine the loss suffered by the person due to their inability to use the vehicle as a result of the traffic accident based on expert reports.
As a result, the party claiming replacement vehicle cost due to the traffic accident is not required to submit any document proving that they rented a vehicle during this period. Even in the absence of such documents, the court will rule in favor of the replacement vehicle cost claim. The party whose vehicle was damaged after the traffic accident is entitled to compensation for the replacement vehicle cost. Therefore, the party requesting replacement vehicle cost compensation is not obligated to rent a vehicle during this period. As can be seen, the replacement vehicle cost claim is independent of whether the claimant actually rented a vehicle.
Relevant Court of Cassation Decisions
“As a rule, the principle of actual damage applies in compensation cases arising from torts. The injured party can only claim the actual damage suffered due to the tort from the responsible party. According to the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, which was in force at the time of the incident, the judge may determine the damage even if the plaintiff does not submit documents proving vehicle rental or payment receipts. In this case, the court should determine the reasonable repair period based on the nature of the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle and decide to accept the plaintiff’s claim for vehicle deprivation compensation based on the expert report regarding the amount the plaintiff should pay for the replacement vehicle during the period they cannot use their vehicle. Therefore, the rejection of the case is deemed incorrect.”
(Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2021/26777 E., Decision No. 2022/11236 K., dated 29.09.2022)
“In this case, the court should have obtained a report to determine the vehicle deprivation compensation for a comparable vehicle during the repair period required to fix the damage caused by the accident, after deducting necessary expenses such as fuel that would have been incurred even if the accident had not occurred, and made a decision based on the result. Therefore, the ruling as written is deemed incorrect.”
(Court of Cassation 17th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/15596 E., Decision No. 2017/156 K., dated 17.01.2017)
“The plaintiff’s vehicle is a commercial van used during the plaintiff’s commercial activities. According to the expert report dated 18.08.2015, which was the basis of the court’s decision, it was stated that repairing the plaintiff’s vehicle was not economical and that the vehicle should be considered a total loss (write-off). Therefore, the calculation of vehicle deprivation loss for the 48-day period between the accident date and the date of purchasing a new vehicle is not appropriate. The report did not evaluate whether the period between the accident and the purchase was reasonable. Given the necessity of considering the plaintiff’s vehicle a total loss, the vehicle deprivation loss should be calculated based on the time required for the plaintiff to acquire a comparable new vehicle. The expert report used as the basis for the decision incorrectly calculated the vehicle deprivation loss based on the period between the accident date and the vehicle sales contract submitted to the file, without considering this aspect.”
(Court of Cassation 17th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2016/1134 E., Decision No. 2016/6228 K., dated 23.05.2016)
Views: 2
