The vehicle damage in traffic accidents, natural need for repair to restore the original application performance before the accident and the state, one of which belongs to the restitution of the types of responsibility. Because of the professional technology to vehicle repair, is a kind of specific industries, therefore the general traffic accidents can't do it by myself, must entrust a specialized vehicle repair units, which will also have a corresponding cost or repair the fare. This makes restitution liability into the liability for damages, namely through the repairs compensation, finally to realize the vehicle of restitution. So, the repairs is the embodiment of the damaged vehicle itself back into the economic losses, it belongs to one of the damaged property losses occur due to motor vehicle. In judicial practice, the repairs was a lot of controversy.

A case: the car damaged in the traffic accident, the defendant requested compensation for more than 2000 yuan for repairs. The trial the plaintiff provides repair invoices and repair list, and damaged photos of the vehicle; the defendant that the high cost of repair, but did not provide evidence. The court in support of the plaintiff's request according to the plaintiff to provide evidence.

In the trial practice, repairs is a question of fact, needs to be determined by the evidence. Because the automobile repair basic is a professional repair company, so the repair expense invoice and repair list issued unit for defining the important evidence repairs, they can directly demonstrate repair expenses. In this case, the plaintiff to provide invoices and repair list, also provide a damaged vehicle photos as evidence, it is fully proved that the repair costs; and the defendant did not provide any evidence to the contrary, just think that there is no evidence to support the high cost, when the individual opinion it is difficult to be accepted.

Case twoPlaintiff: damage to the vehicle in the traffic accident, the defendant requested compensation for the repair cost more than 30000 yuan. The plaintiff submitted repair invoices, but the invoice is in vehicle repair is completed after two months was issued. The court considers the invoice and the repair time provided by the plaintiff gap, can not fully reflect the real vehicle repair loss, according to the actual condition of vehicle damage discretion repair fee is ten thousand yuan.

Repair costs and repair invoice list is important evidence directly repairs, but if they are unable to eliminate the defects, that they will fall. In this case, because the bill itself defects, and the plaintiffs have no evidence to eliminate the defects, so that the amount of the invoice cannot be adopted. Of course, the plaintiff may through the burden of proof to eliminate the flaws of the invoice.

Case threePlaintiff: van injured in the traffic accident, the defendant requested compensation for repair costs forty thousand yuan. The trial the plaintiff provides repair invoices and repair list, although both amount consistent but the cost of the project is different, the court's investigation, repair units approved repair fee has been charged; the defendant that the invoice is false and report. The court according to the results of the survey that the plaintiff has the actual freight car repaired, invoice issue does not affect the repair expenses actually incurred, should with actual occurrence of repairs is to determine the losses.

As already mentioned in the case of two descriptions, if repair invoices or repair list flaws, the proof will be affected. Due to the same repair facts, so repair invoice and repair list should be able to not only the amount of correspondence, and fees should be consistent. But in this case, the plaintiff to provide invoices and repair list items are different, so it needs further investigation to eliminate the defect. The case through the investigation and collection of evidence in court, eliminates the influence of the defect, and ultimately determine the actual cost of vehicle repair.

Case fourPlaintiff: damage to the vehicle in the traffic accident, the defendant requested compensation for 7000 yuan repairs. The trial the plaintiff to provide the invoice list of settlement and repair repair costs; the defendant the plaintiff that repairs too high unreasonable, provides the damaged car pictures. The court found the photos can only explain the appearance of the damaged vehicles, the reasonable expenses shall not what parts repair and corresponding, also not enough to override the actual repair repair by invoices and statements that the cost.

Repairs are actual expense, damaged vehicle picture only shows the appearance of vehicles, can not determine the vehicle repair, so the repairs and vehicle photos just a circumstantial evidence, it is not directly against the invoice and the repair list.

Case fivePlaintiff: damage to the vehicle in the traffic accident, the defendant requested compensation for costs more than 5000 yuan. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff to provide the invoice that repair costs five thousand yuan; the defendant that the plaintiff to find a car insurance claims against the acquisition unit, also believes that the long time and high cost. The price of the vehicle repair identification for five thousand yuan. The court finds that the claim of the plaintiff repairs according to the invoice and the appraisal conclusion, and that in the absence of rules or conventions prohibit case the plaintiff to find unit repair is not inappropriate, the rationality of the existence of time delay is not to deny the car repair costs amount, whether the defendant can obtain insurance claims without prejudice to the plaintiff should bear obligation of compensation.

In general, the invoice and repair list can prove repairs, but sometimes also can be determined by the price appraisal. But unless the parties disputed or vehicle repair situation is more complex, generally do not need through the price appraisal. The case through the price appraisal, further proves the repairs. This also shows that the invoice and repair list is an important evidence for repairs, but they are not a substitute for repairs itself, even if no invoice or repair list, can also be confirmed by other evidence repair fare; in case of invoice or repair list, when necessary, to verify the actual amount of the repairs. By means of price appraisal procedure. In addition, the natural need repair vehicle damage, the victim choose repair units do not have any inappropriate, but does not seem to have let the infringer the choice of excellent reason of vehicle repair unit. Even if objectively thus infringer unable to obtain insurance claim, contractual relationship between the tort and insurance company, not harm the victim compensation for losses. The length of the time generally depends on the repair units rather than the victim, but also decided not to repair fee, so can't influence on the determination of the repairs.

Case sixPlaintiff: damage to the vehicle in the traffic accident, the defendant requested compensation for repairs of 20000 yuan. The vehicle was first shipped to the selected repair units, ready to repair, but the plaintiff to change the damaged vehicle repair unit, entrusted to another vehicle units. Because the defendant against the third party liability insurance, the plaintiff in the vehicle repair, insurance company for the loss and take photos of the vehicle, the loss amount of eight thousand yuan. But the invoice and the repair list provided by the plaintiff confirm the actual repair cost 20000 yuan. The court on the basis of repair list, combined with the loss list and photos, identified more than ten thousand yuan of the repairs.

The occurrence of traffic accidents caused by damage to the vehicle, the victim is has the right to choose repair units, but in the infringer has selected the repair unit and damaged vehicles have been transported to the repair units, if there is no special reason, generally no need replacement repair unit. But even when the victim is still adhere to replace repair unit, also be without rebuke, cannot negate repairs itself, most let the victim to bear the repair unit replacement delivery and other related costs can be. Insurance companies charge only a professional opinion on the vehicle damage, but it cannot replace the actual vehicle repair costs. Therefore the insurance company has not decided to legal authority repairs the specific amount, if the insurance companies charge opinion to determine the repairs, the weight of evidence is inconsistent with the principles of justice. However, while insurance companies charge does not absolutely as the sole basis that repairs, but as a professional opinion can reflect the damage of the vehicle, can be used as one of the most important factors that repairs. So in this case, although the plaintiff to provide invoices and repair list can prove that its actual cost 20000 yuan, but due to the accident, the insurance company loss is only eight thousand yuan, the difference is large, this can prove the actual repair cost is unreasonable from the side. The court considered all the evidence to determine the more than ten thousand yuan of repairs, well reflects the judicial principle of weight of evidence.