As a result of the accident, the car needed serious repairs, for which the insurance company paid, but the money was not enough and the car owner had to apply to the court. What to do when the examinations differ in the testimony, and part of the damage is not subject to an accurate assessment? The Supreme Court indicated that the courts in this history were not taken into account.
Under the general principles of compensation for damages (Article 15 of the Civil Code), the real damage includes expenses that the victim incurred to fully restore his violated right. Despite this situation, the judicial practice for a long time wasn`t homogeneous and at times recognized all payments beyond the amount of repair of the machine are unacceptable.
Olga Arapova also faced a similar problem *. In her "Audi" crashed Arthur Yusupov *, arranging an accident. The insurer of the culprit of the accident - NASCO JSC - paid the injured 232 568 rubles. However, the owner of a foreign car considered such a payment to be understated. She asked an independent expert from OOO "AvtoGarant" to determine the amount of damage to the machine. The study showed that the cost of repair repair car is 450 381 rubles, and the loss of its commodity value - 77,290 rubles. Voluntarily, the insurer and Yusupov did not want to pay this money to Arapova.
Then she decided to collect it in court. She demanded 167 431 rubles. (insurance compensation), 5000 rubles. (compensation for moral damage), 83,715 rubles. (consumer penalty) - with "NASCO" and 127 671 rubles. (damage) - from the originator of the accident.
* - the name and surname have been changed
Anton Tomilin, the senior lawyer of National Law Company “Mitra”, thinks that this case demonstrates another important point: the courts of general jurisdiction don`t properly apply explanations on the judicial practice issues of the Plenum of the Supreme Court.
Materials were taken from "Pravo.ru"
