Car repair fee joke

After a motor vehicle is damaged in a traffic accident, it naturally needs to be repaired to restore its original applicable performance and state before the accident, which is one of the types of responsibility for restoring the original state. Because motor vehicle maintenance needs professional technology, it is a specific industry, so generally speaking, the parties to traffic accidents can't do it themselves, and they must entrust professional motor vehicle maintenance units to carry out it, which will also generate corresponding expenses, that is, repair fees. This makes the responsibility of restoring the original state become the responsibility of compensation for damages, that is, through the compensation of repair costs, the vehicle is finally restored to the original state. Therefore, the repair fee reflects the economic loss caused by repairing the damaged motor vehicle itself, which belongs to one of the property losses caused by motor vehicle damage. In judicial practice, the cost of repairing cars is a controversial issue. Case 1: The plaintiff's car was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant had to pay more than 2,000 yuan for repairing it. During the trial, the plaintiff provided maintenance invoices and maintenance lists, as well as photos of damaged vehicles; The defendant thought that the plaintiff spent too much on repairing the car, but did not provide evidence. According to the evidence provided by the plaintiff, the court supported the plaintiff's request. In the trial practice, the repair fee is a factual issue, which needs to be determined by evidence. Since automobile maintenance is basically carried out by professional maintenance companies, the cost invoice and maintenance list issued by the maintenance unit become important evidence to determine the maintenance cost, which can directly prove the maintenance cost. In this case, the plaintiff provided invoices and maintenance lists, and also provided photos of damaged vehicles as circumstantial evidence, which should fully prove the cost of repairing cars; The defendant did not provide any evidence to the contrary, but subjectively thought that the cost was too high. This kind of personal opinion of the parties without evidence support is difficult to be accepted. Case 2: The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant was required to pay more than 30,000 yuan for the repair. The plaintiff submitted an invoice for maintenance, but the invoice was not issued until two months after the vehicle was repaired. Considering the gap between the invoice provided by the plaintiff and the maintenance time, the court could not fully reflect the real loss of the plaintiff's vehicle maintenance. According to the actual situation of the vehicle damage, the court ruled that the maintenance fee was 1 10,000 yuan. Although maintenance invoices and maintenance lists are important evidence that can directly prove the cost of repairing cars, if there are indelible defects, their probative power will be greatly reduced. In this case, because the invoice itself has defects, and the plaintiff has no evidence to eliminate such defects, the amount proved by the invoice cannot be accepted. Of course, the plaintiff can eliminate the defects in the invoice by giving evidence. Case 3: The plaintiff's truck was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant had to pay a repair fee of 40,000 yuan. During the trial, the plaintiff provided maintenance invoices and maintenance lists. Although the amount is the same, the cost items are different. After the court investigation, the maintenance unit recognized that the maintenance was indeed collected. The defendant thought the invoice was false and reported it. According to the investigation results, the court found that the plaintiff's truck had actually been repaired, and the invoice problem did not affect the plaintiff's actual repair expenses, so the loss should be determined by the actual repair expenses. As mentioned in the explanation of case 2, if there are defects in the maintenance invoice or maintenance list, its probative power will be affected to some extent. Because it is aimed at the same maintenance fact, the maintenance invoice and the maintenance order should be able to correspond, not only in the amount, but also in the charging items. However, in this case, there is a difference between the invoice provided by the plaintiff and the charging items in the maintenance list, and further evidence is needed to eliminate this flaw. The case was investigated and collected by the court, which ruled out the influence of defects and finally determined the actual cost of vehicle maintenance. Case 4: The plaintiff's car was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant had to pay more than 7,000 yuan for repairing the car. During the trial, the plaintiff provided the maintenance settlement list and maintenance invoice; The defendant thought that the plaintiff's repair cost was too high and unreasonable, and provided photos of the damaged car. The court found that the photos can only explain the appearance of the damaged vehicle at that time, but can't explain which parts need to be repaired and the corresponding reasonable expenses, which is not enough to overturn the actual maintenance expenses confirmed by the invoice and the maintenance statement. The repair cost is the actual cost, and the photos of the damaged motor vehicle can only explain the appearance of the vehicle, but can not determine the repair situation of the vehicle. Therefore, the photo of the vehicle is only circumstantial evidence of the repair cost, and it can't be compared with direct evidence such as maintenance invoices and lists. Case 5: The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant had to pay more than 5,000 yuan for repairing it. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff provided invoices to prove that the maintenance cost was 5,000 yuan; The defendant thinks that the plaintiff's finding a unit to repair the car by himself prevents the defendant from obtaining insurance claims, and also thinks that the plaintiff's repair time is too long and the cost is too high. After price appraisal, the plaintiff's vehicle maintenance fee was determined to be 5000 yuan. According to the invoice and appraisal conclusion, the court determined the cost of repairing the car advocated by the plaintiff, and held that there was nothing wrong with the plaintiff looking for a unit to repair the car without any agreement and agreement. Whether there is a delay in repairing the car is not enough to deny the rationality of the amount of the car repair fee, and whether the defendant can get insurance claims does not hinder his compensation obligation to the plaintiff. In general, the repair cost can be confirmed by invoices and maintenance lists, but sometimes it can also be determined by price appraisal. However, unless there is a big dispute between the two parties or the vehicle maintenance situation is complicated, it is generally not necessary to pass the price appraisal. This case further proved the plaintiff's repair cost through price appraisal. This also shows that invoices and maintenance orders are important evidence to prove the maintenance cost, but they cannot replace the maintenance cost itself. Even if there is no invoice or maintenance order, other evidence can be used to prove the maintenance cost. For invoices or maintenance lists, if necessary, the actual amount of repair fees can be verified through price evaluation procedures. In addition, after the vehicle is damaged, it naturally needs maintenance. There is nothing wrong with the victim choosing the maintenance unit himself, and there seems to be no good reason why the infringer must choose the maintenance unit. Even objectively, the infringer can't get insurance claims, which is also a contractual relationship between the infringer and the insurance company, and can't prevent the victim from claiming damages. The length of repair time generally depends on the repair unit rather than the victim, and cannot determine the repair cost, so it cannot affect the determination of repair cost. Case 6: The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant had to pay more than 20,000 yuan for repairing it. The plaintiff's car was first entrusted to the repair unit selected by the defendant to repair the car, but the plaintiff changed the repair unit and entrusted the damaged car to another repair unit. Because the defendant insured the third party liability insurance, before the plaintiff's vehicle was repaired, the insurance company fixed the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle and took photos, with a total fixed loss of 8,000 yuan. However, the invoice and maintenance list provided by the plaintiff confirmed that it actually cost more than 20,000 yuan to repair the car. According to the repair list, combined with the damage list and photos, the court determined that the repair cost was 1 10,000 yuan. When a vehicle is damaged by a traffic accident, the victim has the right to choose a repair unit. However, under the premise that the infringer has selected a repair unit and the damaged vehicle has been transported to the repair unit, there is generally no need to replace the repair unit without special reasons. However, even at this time, the victim still insisted on changing the maintenance unit, which is beyond reproach. Therefore, the repair cost itself cannot be denied, and at most, the victim will bear the transportation and other related expenses incurred by replacing the maintenance unit. The insurance company's damage assessment is only a professional opinion on the damage of the vehicle, and it cannot replace the actual repair cost of the vehicle. Therefore, insurance companies do not have the statutory authority to determine the specific amount of repair fees. It is not in line with the judicial principle of emphasizing evidence if the repair fee is determined solely by the insurance company's opinion of loss determination. However, although the insurance company's damage assessment opinion cannot be absolutely used as the only basis for determining the repair cost, it can be used as one of the important reference factors for determining the repair cost as a professional opinion that can reflect the damage of the vehicle. Therefore, in this case, although the invoice and maintenance list provided by the plaintiff can prove that the actual cost is more than 20,000 yuan, the fixed loss of the insurance company on the day of the accident is only 8,000 yuan, which is quite different, which can prove that the actual maintenance cost is really unreasonable from the side. In this case, the court comprehensively considered all the evidence and determined the repair cost of 1 10,000 yuan, which well reflected the judicial principle of attaching importance to evidence.

Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.