After a motor vehicle is damaged in a traffic accident, it is naturally necessary to repair it to restore its original applicable performance and state before the accident, which is one of the types of responsibilities for restitution. Because the maintenance of motor vehicles needs professional technology, it is a specific industry, so in general, 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 restitution into the responsibility of compensation for damages, that is, through the compensation for the repair cost, the vehicle is finally restored to its original state. Therefore, the repair fee reflects the economic loss caused by the restoration of the damaged motor vehicle itself, which belongs to one of the property losses caused by the damage of the motor vehicle. 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 was required to pay more than 2, yuan for repairing the car. 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. The court supported the plaintiff's request on the basis of the evidence provided by the plaintiff. In the trial practice, the repair fee is a factual issue and needs to be determined through evidence. Since car repairs are basically carried out by professional maintenance companies, the expense invoice and maintenance list issued by the maintenance unit become important evidence to determine the repair cost, which can directly prove the repair expenses. In this case, the plaintiff provided invoices and maintenance lists, and also provided photos of damaged vehicles as circumstantial evidence, which should be said to 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 compensate for the repair cost of more than 3, yuan. The plaintiff submitted an invoice for the maintenance fee, 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, and judged that the repair fee was 1 thousand yuan according to the actual situation of the vehicle damage. Although maintenance invoices and maintenance lists are important evidence that can directly prove the cost of repairing cars, their probative power will be greatly reduced if they have indelible defects. 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 was required to pay 4, yuan for the repair. During the trial, the plaintiff provided a maintenance invoice and a maintenance list. Although the amounts of the two were the same, the cost items were different. After investigation by the court, the maintenance unit recognized that the maintenance fee had actually been 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 expenses for repairing the car, so the loss situation should be determined based on the actual expenses for repairing the car. 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 repair invoice and the maintenance list 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 of the maintenance list, so further evidence collection is needed to eliminate this flaw. The case was investigated and collected by the court, which eliminated the influence of the defect and finally determined the actual expenses of vehicle repair. Case 4: The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant was required to pay more than 7, yuan for repairing the vehicle. During the trial, the plaintiff provided the maintenance settlement list and maintenance invoice; The defendant thought that the plaintiff's repair fee 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 should be repaired and the corresponding reasonable expenses, which is not enough to overturn the actual repair expenses confirmed by the invoices and maintenance statements. 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't determine the repair situation of the vehicle. Therefore, the photos of the vehicle are only circumstantial evidence for the repair cost, and it can't compete with the direct evidence such as maintenance invoices and lists. Case 5: The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant was required to pay more than 5, yuan for repairing the vehicle. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff provided invoices to prove that the maintenance cost was 5, yuan; The defendant thinks that the plaintiff's finding a unit to repair the car by himself hinders 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 was determined to be 5, yuan. According to the invoice and appraisal conclusion, the court determined the repair cost claimed by the plaintiff, and held that it was not inappropriate for the plaintiff to find a unit to repair the car without any stipulation or agreement. Whether there was a delay in repairing the car was not enough to deny the rationality of the amount of repair cost, and whether the defendant could obtain insurance claims did not hinder his compensation obligation to the plaintiff. Under normal circumstances, the repair cost can be confirmed by invoices and maintenance lists, but sometimes it can 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. The case passed the price appraisal, which further proved the plaintiff's repair fee. This also shows that invoices and maintenance lists are important evidence to prove the repair cost, but they cannot replace the repair cost itself. Even if there is no invoice or maintenance list, other evidence can be used to prove the repair cost. In the case of invoices or maintenance lists, the actual amount of repair fees can be verified through price appraisal procedures when necessary. In addition, the vehicle naturally needs to be repaired after being damaged. There is nothing wrong with the victim choosing the repair unit by himself, and there seems to be no good reason why the infringer must choose the repair unit. Even if objectively, the infringer can't get insurance claims, this is also a contractual relationship between the infringer and the insurance company, which can't hinder the victim from claiming damages. The length of repair time generally depends on the repair unit rather than the victim, and it can't determine the amount of repair fee, so it can't affect the determination of repair fee. Case 6: The plaintiff's vehicle was damaged in a traffic accident, and the defendant was required to pay more than 2, yuan for repairing the vehicle. The plaintiff's car was first consigned to the repair unit selected by the defendant, ready to repair the car, but the plaintiff changed the repair unit by himself 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 and took photos of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the total fixed damage was 8, yuan. However, the invoice and maintenance list provided by the plaintiff confirmed that it actually cost more than 2 thousand yuan to repair the car. According to the maintenance list, combined with the damage list and photos, the court identified the repair fee of more than 1 thousand yuan. When a vehicle is damaged by a traffic accident, the victim has the right to choose a repair unit. However, on 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 if there is no special reason. However, even at this time, the victim still insists on replacing the maintenance unit, which is beyond reproach. Therefore, the repair fee itself cannot be denied, and at most, the victim can 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, but it can't replace the actual repair cost of the vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company does not have the statutory authority to determine the specific amount of the repair fee. If the repair fee is determined solely by the insurance company's damage assessment opinion, it is not in line with the judicial principle of emphasizing evidence. However, although the insurance company's damage assessment opinion cannot be absolutely 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 2, yuan, the insurance company's fixed loss on the day of the accident is only 8, yuan, and there is a big gap between them, which can prove from the side that the actual repair cost is indeed unreasonable. In this case, the court comprehensively considered all the evidence and determined the repair fee of more than 1 thousand yuan, which well reflected the judicial principle of attaching importance to evidence.

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