The minivan owned by the woman, a Hyundai Starex, was handed to a private workshop for repairs. It had been used for business trips and to transport souvenirs. She requested engine work and several components to be replaced. Following a mechanic’s advice, she bought new parts at a cost of 75,490 rubles. The workshop completed the repairs, charged 107,000 rubles, and issued a warranty, according to Pravo.ru.
After the service, the vehicle broke down during a drive and would not start. The owner brought it back to the garage and pressed for a free fix, but the owner rejected the demand, citing that some older parts still needed replacement.
In the end she purchased a battery, an air mass sensor, and a turbine. The total came to 27,050 rubles for all items and 8,000 rubles for extra repairs. Even after these replacements, the car still refused to start.
At another workshop, minor repairs were carried out and the staff explained that the engine still required repair, though the service had not offered such work previously. The car owner then returned to the original service, where they charged 46,000 rubles for new parts and engine work, yet the car kept running poorly.
An investigation found that the repair job had not been performed to professional standards. The entrepreneur filed a claim against the service asking for a return of 248,537 rubles for repairs, parts, and tow services, 40,000 rubles for research, 20,000 rubles for non-material damages, and 5,000 rubles for legal services. She also sought reimbursement for another woman who wanted the minibus repaired.
The dispute led to a lawsuit seeking roughly 600,000 rubles in total from the defendant, arguing that the poor workmanship prevented the vehicle from being used for work and caused losses.
The service shop rejected liability, arguing that the entrepreneur bought third-party parts and the shop should not be held accountable for their quality. It was also claimed that the case involved fines, compensation for moral damages, and penalties under consumer protection laws, given that the vehicle was used for commercial rather than personal purposes.
Court decisions
A new court investigation revealed errors in the repair work. The court partially granted the car owner’s claims, barring the mechanic from reimbursing costs for parts and repairs performed elsewhere, and awarding 429,350 rubles to the plaintiff. (Citation: Pravo.ru.)
The defendant challenged the ruling at the Samara Regional Court, which noted that fines, compensation for non-pecuniary damages, and penalties fall under the Consumer Rights Protection Act. Because the minibus was used for business purposes, only certain costs were recoverable for poor repairs, expert work, legal services, and tow truck usage, totaling 178,200 rubles. (Citation: Samara Regional Court records.)
The appeal and cassation bodies affirmed this decision, and the car owner pursued further appellate review to the Supreme Court. (Citation: regional court summaries.)
Under the law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, a consumer is someone who uses a product for personal and household needs. The Supreme Court noted that the claimant used the car for work and was registered as a self-employed person. Since the evidence did not demonstrate exclusive personal use of the vehicle, the court confirmed the prior rulings by the appeal and cassation bodies. (Citation: Supreme Court rulings.)
Expert opinion
Lawyers suggest that if the woman had offered evidence of a large family relying on the minibus or presented witnesses showing the vehicle was used solely for personal purposes, the case might have turned out differently. (Citation: legal commentary.)