Introduction

This study has been prepared to determine the scope of the replacement vehicle cost (loss of use of vehicle) that can be claimed from the at-fault party in cases where the repair process of a vehicle damaged after a traffic accident actually takes 30 days due to reasons such as spare part supply and service delays, exceeding the period (3 days) foreseen in the initial appraisal report. The study analyzes the presented decisions of the Supreme Court, Regional Courts of Justice, and Courts of First Instance to examine which criteria courts take into account when evaluating such claims, especially the concept of “reasonable repair period” and how they interpret the responsibility for delays in the repair process.

1. Adoption of the Concept of “Reasonable Repair Period” for Replacement Vehicles

The fundamental principle common to all judicial decisions is that the replacement vehicle cost is calculated based on the “reasonable repair period”. The Supreme Court emphasizes that determining this period requires specialized and technical knowledge and therefore must be determined by an expert witness. This situation was expressed in the decision numbered 2016/18634 E. of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court as:  “considering that the determination of a reasonable repair period according to the nature of the damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle is a matter requiring specialized and technical knowledge”. This principle prevents courts from arbitrarily determining a period, ensuring that calculations are based on the objective nature of the damage.

When experts determine this period; technical data such as the extent of the damage, parts to be replaced or repaired, the time required for bodywork and paint operations, labor for disassembling and reassembling parts, and final checks are taken into account (Bursa 1st Commercial Court of First Instance, 2023/345 E.).

2. Evaluation of Factors Causing the Extension of the Repair Period for a Replacement Vehicle

The impact of reasons such as spare part supply and service delays, which form the basis of the problem, on the calculation of compensation is the area where the most significant difference among decisions is observed.

a) Strict Approach Regarding Delays Not Being Attributable to the Opposing Party:

Numerous first instance and regional court decisions are of the opinion that the risk and responsibility for delays in the repair process cannot be attributed to the at-fault opposing party. According to this approach, the at-fault party is only responsible for direct damages resulting from the tort, meaning the time technically required to repair the vehicle.

Kayseri Regional Court of Justice 3rd Civil Chamber (2023/948 E.) clearly stated this principle in its decision: “Issues such as the vehicle being submitted for repair late, service congestion, time spent on repair due to delays in part supply, late delivery of the vehicle to the lessor, etc., cannot be attributed to the defendant.”

Similarly, İzmir 2nd Civil Court of Commerce (2023/12 E.) also limited the substitute vehicle cost to a reasonable period of 15 days, as determined by the expert, stating that the extended duration due to reasons such as service density cannot be attributed to the defendant. According to this view, it does not seem possible to claim compensation from the culpable opposing party for the portion of the actual 30-day period in your situation that resulted from parts procurement and service delays.

b) Flexible Approach Considering Delays Within a Reasonable Period:

In contrast, some courts adopt a more pragmatic stance, acknowledging that in today’s conditions, the procurement of parts is also a natural part of the repair process and include this period in the calculation of a “reasonable repair time.”

In its decision, the expert for the Kayseri 1st Civil Court of Commerce (2023/22 E.) opined that “the repairs in question would be completed within 7 days, and that when delays due to parts procurement, lasting a maximum of 7 days, are added, a vehicle deprivation period of 15 (fifteen) days should be considered appropriate for the repair duration,” and the court based its ruling on this period.

Similarly, in the decision of the Kayseri 2nd Civil Court of Commerce (2024/469 E.), the expert determined that “the expert waiting period, parts waiting period, and repair periods were evaluated, and the aforementioned repairs/replacements would be completed within 15 days,” and the court rendered its judgment based on this period.

Ankara 1st Civil Court of Commerce (2022/228 E.) however, by adopting the expert report stating that “the period required for the supply of parts and the completion of repairs is 60 days”, has regarded the part supply process as an integral part of the reasonable period.

These decisions indicate that, in your case, the entire 30-day period, including the part supply duration, may be subject to compensation if it is assessed as “reasonable” by the expert.

c) Determination of Liability in Excessive Delays Exceeding the Reasonable Period:

In some cases, the repair period can even exceed part supply durations that would be considered reasonable. In such instances, some courts direct liability in a different direction, namely, towards the service or insurance company that caused the delay.

In the decision of the Antalya 2nd Civil Court of Commerce (2022/324 E.), the vehicle’s repair took 110 days, and the expert determined the reasonable repair period to be 25 days. The court, by ruling for loss of earnings for the 85-day period exceeding the reasonable duration, decided that this excess was compensable.

In the decision of the Bursa 2nd Civil Court of Commerce (2022/819 E.), however, the reasonable repair period for the vehicle that remained in service for 96 days was determined as 42 days, and it was ruled that the defendant service was responsible for the replacement vehicle cost arising from the 54-day difference. These decisions show that delays exceeding the reasonable period are not borne by the aggrieved party, but that liability is not always directed at the at-fault party in the accident, but can be directed at the party responsible for the delay.

Conclusion

In light of the presented court decisions, it is clear that you are not bound by the 3-day repair period stated in the accident appraisal report. The outcome of your substitute vehicle cost claim will depend on the “reasonable repair period” to be determined by a court-appointed expert, considering the nature of the damage to your vehicle, part supply conditions, and other factors.

In this process, two main scenarios stand out:

If the Court Adopts a Strict Approach: If the court adopts the principle that part procurement and service delays cannot be attributed to the at-fault opposing party, the expert will likely determine only the time required for the technical repair of the damage (e.g., 5-10 days) as a reasonable period, and your claim will be limited to this period.

If the Court Adopts a Flexible Approach: If the court views the part procurement process as a natural part of the repair, the expert may determine a period close to 30 days or the entire duration as a “reasonable repair period,” taking this period into account. In this case, your chances of winning almost the entire amount of your claim will increase.

The course of the lawsuit will be determined by the report of the appointed expert and the court’s interpretation regarding the responsibility for the causes of delay. Therefore, it will be important to present evidence during the lawsuit process to prove that the delay in part procurement was not due to your own fault, but rather stemmed from the vehicle’s characteristics (e.g., being imported) or a general stock problem in the market. If there is an excessive delay, directing responsibility to the repair service can also be considered as a separate legal option. A paper suggestion.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

Claims for substitute vehicle costs (loss of use damages) after a traffic accident are not as simple as they seem. Because in each case, the court may adopt different approaches regarding expert reports, reasonable repair period evaluations, and which party will be held responsible. Therefore, it is crucial for the process to be handled by an expert lawyer to avoid loss of rights.

Especially in cases heard in regions such as Tuzla, Istanbul, Gebze, Pendik, and Tepeören, different court decisions may exist regarding the calculation of substitute vehicle compensation. An experienced lawyer ensures both the proper collection of evidence and the effective presentation of critical issues such as part procurement and service delays before the court.

An incorrect application or missing document can lead to your compensation claim being rejected or a much lower amount being awarded than you expected. Therefore, seeking expert support helps you proceed with the right strategy from the very beginning of the process.