ISTANBUL ……. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
FILE NO: 2013/………. Basis
RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT):
DEFENDANT: Av.
THE PLAINTIFF :
ATTORNEY:
SUBJECT: It consists of presenting our responses to the lawsuit.
EXPLANATIONS
1.) First of all, we file a COMPLAINT for the case before us. As it is understood from the lawsuit petition, the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the client company for the same damage through the file numbered 2013/…. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the client company regarding the same damage through the file numbered 2013/………… Esas of the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance. It is not in accordance with the rules of law for the plaintiff to file a new lawsuit for the same damage. Moreover, the damage arising as a result of the traffic accident is not in accordance with Istanbul ….. Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance case numbered 2013/…………. For this reason, the plaintiff has no legal interest in filing this lawsuit.
2.)In addition, the plaintiff has agreed with ………………… Sigorta A.Ş., where the vehicle belonging to the client company is insured, to pay ………………………….. TL subject to the lawsuit, and that they were given a day to make the payment by the insurance company, and then the defendant insurance company did not make the payment because our driver, the employee of the client company, was found to be at fault. For some reason, the plaintiff’s attorney did not explain how the traffic accident subject to the lawsuit occurred. The vehicle belonging to the client company was hit from behind by a truck whose license plate was not taken, and was accused of committing the crime of rear-end collision, one of the main defects numbered 04 in the traffic accident report, and the 34 AA 0000 plate vehicle under the management of the plaintiff hit the vehicle belonging to the client company from behind. However, in the report, it was stated that he did not commit the offense of rear-end collision, but committed the offense of sleepless, tired and distracted driving among the secondary defects. The application of different penalties for the same offense undermines the reliability of the traffic accident report. The plaintiff is at fault. The stopped vehicle is the vehicle belonging to the client company. However, the plaintiff was traveling at high speed and disregarded traffic rules. The accident occurred because the plaintiff did not maintain the required driving distance between the vehicles.
CONCLUSION and REQUEST: For the reasons presented and explained above, first of all, we request that our objection to the pendency be accepted, and if not, the unfair and groundless lawsuit should be dismissed on the merits and the trial expenses and attorney’s fees should be decided to be charged to the other party.
Defendant Attorney
