Why did you file this lawsuit? Liao Jianxun expressed the hope that through this lawsuit, highway operators will not ignore the interests of car owners, and at the same time hope to attract the attention of the legislature and the competent authorities and formulate relevant regulations for this phenomenon.
Event review:
Usually 10 minutes or more takes 45 minutes.
2019165438+1On the morning of October 8, Liao Jianxun drove his vehicle from Hua Fu West Road, Panyu District, Guangzhou to Dongbao Building, Yuexiu District, passing through Panyu Avenue, Panyu Bridge and South China Expressway. On that day, at about 1 1, the toll station of Panyu Bridge entered South China Expressway, and after driving northward to the section near South China Bridge, the road was seriously congested. It is understood that this congestion is caused by the occupation of roads in South China.
Liao Jianxun estimated that the length of the congested road section was about 3 kilometers at that time, and the traffic time was as long as 30 minutes due to congestion. It generally takes more than 10 minutes from Panyu Bridge toll station to Huangpu Avenue toll station. It took him 45 minutes to drive out, and soon he paid the road and bridge fee 10 yuan to South China.
Complaint:
Road operators violate the contract and do not provide paid services.
Liao Jianxun believes that after the owner drove the vehicle into the South China Expressway, he essentially entered into a service contract with the road operator. According to the principle of fairness, honesty and credit in the contract law, the other party should provide services equivalent to the price paid by the owner.
Liao Jianxun complained that according to the "Regulations on Road Administration of Guangzhou Urban Expressway", South China Expressway is an urban expressway, and its design speed should be more than 60 kilometers per hour. However, the highway section that he needs 45 minutes to pass is about 10 km, but the speed of that day is only 13.33km/h/h, which is much lower than the normal speed. China Southern Highway and Bridge Engineering Company failed to pay this amount to the owner.
Therefore, Liao Jianxun filed a lawsuit in accordance with the Contract Law and other relevant laws and regulations, requesting the court to order South China Road and Bridge to return the collected road and bridge fees 10 yuan.
Argue:
Before maintenance, the public has been informed of travel reminders and bypass schemes.
In today's trial, the defendant South China Road and Bridge did not appear in court, and his attorney appeared in court. The defendant pointed out that the maintenance of the South China Bridge was approved by the relevant departments, and the maintenance items were announced to the public, and the travel reminder and bypass plan were informed. The maintenance is reasonable, and the plaintiff can choose to detour to the destination, but the plaintiff still chooses this road knowing that the road is under maintenance, which means that the two sides have reached an agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to demand the return of road and bridge fees. The plaintiff's claim is meaningless and I hope the court will reject it.
The defendant also believed that the plaintiff did not have the qualification as the subject of litigation, because the plaintiff did not submit relevant evidence to prove that he was a driver at that time, so he could not file a lawsuit. Moreover, the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that its rapid time-consuming in South China is caused by congestion, and the speed is also related to the traffic volume. When the traffic volume is large, it may not reach the corresponding speed, which cannot be proved to be caused by maintenance, and the maintenance of South China Bridge is based on the safety of citizens' property.
Trial website:
The two sides have made it clear that they will not accept mediation and will decide on another day.
Can the defendant be excused for informing the outside world of road construction in advance? The plaintiff believes that the South China Express business unit informed the road construction situation in the media and WeChat official accounts, but this notification method is aimed at the unspecified public and cannot guarantee that consumers who are passing through the South China Express or will pass through the South China Express know the situation.
"According to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law and the Contract Law, service providers should inform consumers when they are about to receive services, or when they sign contracts with consumers, that is, at the time of notification, this unspecified public is not a consumer or the other party to the contract, which obviously violates the Consumer Protection Law and the Contract Law." ? The plaintiff said that since the roads involved are not forbidden to pass, they should perform their contractual obligations in accordance with the contract, and the price should be reduced or exempted for defective performance.
Liao Jianxun also pointed out in court that he did not see the relevant tips before entering the toll station entrance from Panyu Bridge. This means that the defendant did not inform the consumer effectively and properly. "In addition, Liao Jianxun said that the current highway maintenance is arbitrary, and the congestion caused is universal, not an individual case. The road management unit did not consider the experience and feelings of consumers, and many car owners were deeply distressed by traffic jams, so he filed this lawsuit.
At the end of the trial, the presiding judge asked the original defendant if he was willing to mediate, and both parties said in court that they would not accept mediation.
It is reported that the case is still under further investigation and will be pronounced on another day.
Text, pictures and videos: Guangzhou Daily all-media reporter? rule
Guangzhou Daily Full Media Editor? Lin
This article comes from car home, the author of the car manufacturer, and does not represent car home's position.