21st Legal Department
Case Number: 2018/920
Decision Number: 2019/886
“Text of the Precedent”
COURT: Labor Court
IN THE NAME OF THE TURKISH NATION
The plaintiff requested a decision ordering the payment of material and moral damages arising from disability due to a work accident. The court, in accordance with the reversal, decided to reject the request as stated in its judgment. Upon the appeal of the judgment by the plaintiff’s attorney, it was determined that the appeal request was timely, the documents in the file were read with the report prepared, the matter was considered, and the following decision was rendered.
DECISION
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, the compelling reasons on which the judgment is based, and the scope and reasons for the appeal, the plaintiff’s other appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph are rejected. The case concerns the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for material and moral damages resulting from permanent disability caused by an insurance incident on 11/01/2012. The file shows that the plaintiff suffered 0% permanent disability as a result of the work accident and that the plaintiff insured was 20% at fault and the defendant employers were 80% at fault for the occurrence of the work accident. The court decided to reject the plaintiff’s claim for material and moral damages because he was not disabled.
1-Compensation claims arising from work accidents relate to the claim for compensation for damages not covered by the Social Security Institution.
From the scope of the file, it is understood that the court reached its conclusion without considering that the plaintiff insured was unable to work for a period of time due to the work accident in question and that the plaintiff suffered a loss of wages during this period of rest.
The insured is paid temporary disability benefits by the Institution in accordance with Article 18 of Law No. 5510 for the period during which they are temporarily unable to work due to a work accident or occupational disease. This benefit is paid for the period during which the insured is unable to work (is on sick leave) starting from the date of the accident in the case of work accidents and from the date of the start of treatment in the case of occupational diseases. The income lost by the insured during the period of temporary incapacity to work is also included in the material damage resulting from the work accident. It is clear that the insured person who is unable to work during the period of being on sick leave will suffer a loss equal to the wages they are deprived of during this period, and this loss must also be accepted as material damage. The material damage suffered by the insured person during the periods when their treatment continues and they are unable to work due to the damaging event should be calculated based on the assumption that they suffered a 100% loss of working capacity during this period. If the material damage is determined through an expert and there is a temporary disability benefit payable to the insured by the Social Security Institution (SGK), the result obtained by deducting the recoverable portion from the calculated material damage will reveal the uncompensated damage of the injured party during the rest period, also known as the temporary disability period. Therefore, the Court’s decision to reject the claim for material damages without calculating the loss of wages for the period of rest (sick leave) for the plaintiff, whose permanent disability rate was 0%, based on a written justification, was not in accordance with the procedure and the law. The task at hand is to assess that the plaintiff was 100% incapacitated during the period covered by the medical report, to accept that he suffered damages equal to the wages he lost due to his inability to work during this period, to have an expert calculate his material damages, and to evaluate all the evidence together and decide accordingly.
2-On the other hand, both Article 47 of the repealed Civil Code and Article 56 of the current Civil Code No. 6098 provide that the judge may decide to award an appropriate amount of money as moral damages to the injured party, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in the event of damage to a person’s physical integrity. The amount of money that the judge decides to award to the injured party as moral damages, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, must be fair. This award has a unique quality, similar to compensation, which is to restore the moral peace of the injured party. It is not a penalty, nor does it aim to compensate for damage related to property law. Therefore, the limit of this compensation should be determined according to its purpose.The amount of compensation should be sufficient to achieve the desired level of satisfaction under the current circumstances. The reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s Decision to Consolidate Case Law No. 7/7 dated June 26, 1966, clearly states the special circumstances and conditions that will affect the amount of moral damages to be determined. As these may vary from case to case, the judge must use his discretion in this matter and objectively demonstrate the reasons that influenced his decision in a manner consistent with the case. When exercising this discretion, the judge must take into account the economic conditions of the country, the social and economic circumstances of the parties, the purchasing power of money, the degree of fault of the parties, the severity of the incident, the plaintiff’s rate of permanent disability, the age of the worker, the date of the incident, and other such characteristics. It is also indisputable that the amount awarded must be such that it not only provides moral satisfaction but also serves as a deterrent. In light of these explanations, in the present case, even if the plaintiff, who suffered a 0% permanent disability, did not become permanently disabled, he would still experience grief and sorrow, and considering that the violation of his mental integrity and nervous disorder are also included in the concept of physical harm, and taking into account the period of treatment, it was necessary to decide on an appropriate amount of moral damages. Therefore, the court’s decision to reject the claim for moral damages was incorrect. The court’s decision, rendered in writing without considering these material and legal facts, is contrary to procedure and law and constitutes grounds for reversal. Therefore, the plaintiff’s appeals challenging these aspects should be accepted, and the judgment should be reversed.
CONCLUSION: The judgment is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, and it was unanimously decided on 02/12/2019.