Our reporter Xue Hong: An auto mechanic擅自drove and damaged a car that was brought in by the owner for protection. The car owner, Ms. Yang, requested to have the car repaired at the 4S shop but was refused. Ms. Yang took a certain automobile service limited company and the mechanic to court, seeking compensation for vehicle damage amounting to a total of 68,000 yuan. This morning, it was learned that the Fengtai Court had ruled in the first instance that the two defendants compensate the car owner for losses amounting to over 62,000 yuan.
Ms. Yang stated that on the afternoon of February 27, 2011, she had her car sent to a certain automobile service limited company for maintenance and upkeep, agreeing to pick it up the next day at 8 AM. To her surprise, an employee of the company, Mr. Liu, drove the car without permission and caused damage. Subsequently, both parties signed a "Protocol Declaration," where Mr. Liu and the company would jointly compensate the plaintiff for repair costs.
During the assessment, Ms. Yang learned that the car's engine was damaged and requested it be sent to the 4S shop for repairs, but the other party refused due to the high cost of repairs at the 4S shop. Ms. Yang herself sent the car to the 4S shop for repairs, costing 42,280 yuan.
Subsequently, Ms. Yang took the two defendants to court, demanding compensation for vehicle repair costs, depreciation losses of 17,000 yuan, appraisal fees of 2,000 yuan, lost wages, and taxi fares incurred due to not being able to use the car, totaling 68,004 yuan.
The two defendants argued that they did not dispute the process of the vehicle's damage but believed that the claimed losses were too high and did not recognize the excessive parts.
Court Ruling
The court held that Mr. Liu drove the plaintiff's car without permission and caused the vehicle to be damaged. Afterwards, the two defendants agreed to jointly bear full responsibility, hence the two defendants should bear joint liability for compensation.
The plaintiff's claim for repair costs is supported by official receipts, and the claim for vehicle depreciation loss is based on the appraisal report; the court supports both. However, the plaintiff's claims for lost wages and transportation costs are deemed too high by the court, which has decided them appropriately. The court made its ruling accordingly.
Currently, neither party has appealed.
Related articles: A junior three girl met an online friend and was deceived and detained in northern Shaanxi for four months.