The OP asked what should be done to the mechanic.

The OP did not ask what should be done to the car.

So to answer the OP's question.

I will address first an foremost what should be done to the mechanic before addressing the question what should be done to the car, which the OP did not ask but which is incidental to the issue raised by the OP.

I will try to be extremely objective, so both sides of the divide will learn, if they did not know before as well as take precautions in the best interests of all concerned.

What I will not do is go into extreme details to give advice for free, after all I am not being paid for this. This is Pro Bono, so to minimize my costs in terms of brain waves and time and analysis, I will draw on already prepared sources and appropriately acknowledge them, and then explain how they apply to the matter at hand.

That the car is worth less than a million naira does not mean that the loss should be borne by the OP alone, when through no fault of his this happened, but through the fault of his mechanic, this state of affairs came to be..

From the legal point of view the question is this:

Has the mechanic done a wrong to the OP that the law recognizes? The short answer is yes.

The second question from the legal point of view is this:

Is the law willing to provide a remedy in favour of the OP at the cost of the mechanic? The short answer is yes.

Now that that is out of the way.

I will provide proof for the above position.

In law, you state principle and then support it with grounds.

I have stated a principle, I will in the next post provide the grounds for the principle.

So all drivers and all mechanics, both practicing and intending, please take heed!

Source:http://thegarage.jalopnik.com/your-car-was-damaged-while-in-the-shop-who-pays-1677368418



Story: You bring your car to a dealer for repair and when you pick it up it has a dent in it. The manager tells you to file a claim with your insurance company because he does not know what happened to your car. What do you tell him?



Of course, your instinct is to tell him to take a flying leap – or worse – and, your instincts are right. Many states even have laws which help you pin the garage keeper with the liability.



In Michigan, it comes from MCL 256.541, often called the Garage Keeper’s Liability Act.



Whenever any damage shall be done to any motor vehicle while in the possession or under the care, custody or control of the owner, his agent or servant, or the keeper of any public garage or other establishment where such vehicle shall have been accepted for hire or gain, proof of such damage shall be prima facie evidence that such damage was the result of the negligent act of such owner or keeper of the place where such vehicle was stored.



What this statute does is shift the burden of proof in a situation where you give your car to someone else under certain circumstances. This does not mean you will automatically win this argument but it gives you a big leg up. In a typical legal setting, you must prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence and you would have to prove the defendant was negligent. With a law like this, the garage keeper has to prove that it was not negligent. The standard of proof is reversed – which makes it much easier for you to prevail.



The obvious ones are the repair shop or a parking lot that charges you money. If the vehicle is damaged during the time it is in their possession, care, custody and so on, the law presumes the damage was the result of the garage keeper’s negligence. And that’s because it usually is.





“But wait,” you ask. What about those huge signs you see at the entrance of the garage that claim the owner is not liable for anything? Or the back of the parking stub which likewise says the same thing?



Anyone can put a sign on the wall – especially if they own the wall – but that doesn’t make it the law. The sign deters people from following up on this when it happens to them. Same thing with the ticket stub. If the ticket stub told you to jump off a cliff, would you? They are banking on the fact that many people with valid claims will not pursue them - presuming that the sign or the ticket stub actually reflects the law.



Conclusion/Summary:

Is it really true that this is the responsibility of the insurance company of the car owner or the responsibility of the insurance company of the mechanic? The answer is that insurance is a business, and when the insurance company investigates the circumstances under which this accident occured, the insurance company will most likely attempt to disclaim responsibility and put the fault of the negligence of the mechanic who failed in his duty of care towards the car left in his possession and towards the owner of the car. In saner climes, you cannot legally ply your trade in the services industry without an insurance cover for such circumstances, due to liability concerns. So passing the buck on the insurance company is not necessarily going to work, in summary it is not a foolproof and guaranteed remedy. Even if Nigerian stated do not have such laws as most American states have, the fact remains that under common law which Nigeria observes and follows, the mechanic has is in breach of his obligations towards the OP. The question is, is the OP ready to activate his remedies under the law, unless someone pays the price of fighting such fights, our jurisprudence will never get to where such is in advanced climes.



How does the law aid the OP? The law tells the mechanic, tell me how you were not negligent. How did replacing an engine seat result in the circumstances we find in the various pictures on this thread. if he does not have a satisfactory answer, then he is in breach of his duty of car aka he is negligent towards to OP and should pay the price aka remedy the OP.



If the mechanic disclaims liability in writing via a sign or a note in his receipt, does the law recognize it? NO! not at all. the mechanic will find out very sadly that if the issue arises in court, it will fall like a house of cards leaving him naked. it makes no sense to rely on such. In the American case of Gardner v. Downtown Porsche Audi (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 713 [225 Cal.Rptr. 757] , the court asked and answered: This case raises an issue common in daily life yet one which has received almost no attention in California appellate decisions. [180 Cal.App.3d 715] May an automobile repair garage avoid liability for its negligence by having car owners sign a waiver form when they leave their cars with the garage? In this opinion, we hold they cannot and affirm the judgment below. Note: summary is extracted from a lawlink.com website which I decline to post but acknowledge due to nairaland's extremely sensitive antispam settings

Source: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/automobile-mechanic-liability.html

Story:
Automobile Mechanic Liability

When you leave your car with a mechanic for repair or service, you have a bailment relationship with the mechanic. As a result, has several legal duties. Specifically, the mechanic must:

1.Treat your car with a reasonable standard of care until you pick it up.

2. Make repairs in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner. He must have the ordinary skills of other mechanics.

3.Inspect your car to make sure that it is not a danger to the driver or other driver and repair the car to make it safe for use.

4.Give a written estimate and receive authorization before doing any repair work, in many states. In these places, even if the mechanic does excellent work and charges a reasonable price, the mechanic cannot recover for his work because he gave no estimate.

5.Not engage in fraud, concealment, lowballing, or bait and switch.

6.Not make unauthorized or unnecessary repairs.


When Is the Mechanic Liable for Damages Resulting from Faulty Service?

A mechanic is liable for damages if you suffer damages as a result of negligent repairs. For example, if the mechanic uses the wrong parts or misplaces a part, and then your engine explodes when you start the car, the mechanic is liable. It does not matter if you already paid the bill and find out about a problem later. The mechanic is still liable.

However, if the mechanic offers to correct his negligent repairs at no cost, and you choose not to, you cannot claim that he caused you damage because you failed to have the problem fixed. Also, you cannot cause the damage through your own negligence or assumption of risk.

What about the Contents of My Car?

A mechanic is only responsible for the safekeeping of items inside your car if he knows they are inside. Otherwise, the mechanic is not liable if they are damaged or stolen.


What If My Car Is Stolen from the Repair Shop?

In general, the mechanic is not responsible for the theft of your car from his repair shop unless his negligence caused the theft. The mechanic has to do or forget to do something that leads to your car being stolen. For example, if the mechanic leaves the keys in your unlocked car and parks it on the street, he is responsible if someone steals it.


What about Disclaimers?

Mechanics will often try to disclaim their liability by posting signs or including disclaimers on contracts. These disclaimers are ineffective if you do not agree to the terms or were never made aware of such terms. Additionally, a mechanic cannot disclaim his negligence or that of his employees. For example, the mechanic would be liable for damages if an employee negligently starts a fire in the repair shop that destroys your car.

Conclusion/Summary:
Although there is no written contract, or oven a properly structured oral contract. The very act of handing over your car to the mechanic creates a relationship recognized by law between the OP and the mechanic. As as everyone knows, every time a relationship is created, obligations arise, now that is another way of saying legal duties towards each other. In this case, the obligation of the OP to pay the mechanic upon satisfactorily completing the job as well the obligation not to short-pay. In the same vein a number of obligations or legal duties are due from the mechanic in favour of the OP, as enumerated above.

Clearly, the mechanic can run afoul of his legal duties aka obligations and in such cases, damages ought to be paid unless waived by the OP. I am bring this up, because an impression is being given that the OP's only choice is to swallow his losses, if that were the case, then the OP has no choice. For there to be a choice, they have to be options, in this case, the OP has a choice, pursue legal remedies he is entitled to or give up on his legal remedies, but most definitely not just/only the latter.

In other words, then if there is an error of commission or omission on the part of the mechanic, then clearly he is liable for damages to the OP. The question is really if the OP intends to pursue claims he is legally entitled to.

Thus even if a master mechanic did not case the problem himself, but one of his apprentices caused it, he is himself liable. So master mechanics, don't just teach your apprentices how to troubleshoot, teach them how to exercise an appropriate degree of the standard of car to client's vehicles that common law and statutory law requires of/demands of you, because like some people would say, in the final analysis, the buck stops with you!

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. Source: Wikipedia

If negligence is established or resolved against the mechanic, then damages must flow from the mechanic to the OP.

So the first duty of the OP is to establish negligence and in the case of Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria V Fidelia Ozoemena SC. 129/2001, the Supreme Court of Nigeria per Umaru Atu Kalgo, J.S.C.defined negligence as follows:

Negligence has been defined in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 5th edition as "lack of proper care and attention, careless behaviour.”

Negligence is a tort and it is complete when three conditions are satisfied. These are:


1. The defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff;

2. The defendant has acted or spoken in such a way as to break that duty of care;

3. The conduct of the defendant was careless.

See Clerk and Lindsel on Torts 14th Edition, page 474. Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd V. C. F. A. O (1966) 1 All NLR 140; Oyidiabu V. Okechukwu (1972) 5 SC 191, Orhue V. NEPA (1998) 9 NWLR (pt. 557) 187.

The tort of negligence is traditionally described as damage which is not too remote and caused by a breach of duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The established legal position is that the onus of proving negligence is on the plaintiff who alleges it and unless and until that is proved, it does not shift. In other words where a plaintiff pleads and relies on negligence by conduct or action of the defendant, he or she must prove by evidence the conduct or action and the circumstances of its occurrence, giving rise to the breach of the duty of care. It is only after this that the burden shifts to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge negligence on his part. And what amounts to negligence is a question of fact not law and each case must be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances. See Kalla V. Jarmakans Transport Ltd (1961) All NLR 747; Ngilari V. Mothercart Ltd (1999) 13 NWLR (pt. 636) 626.

For a plaintiff to succeed in an action for negligence, he or she must plead all the particulars in sufficient detail of the negligence alleged and the duty of care owed by the defendant and all these must be supported by credible evidence at the trial. See Koya V. U.S. A (1997) 1 NWLR (pt 481)251.

In an action for negligence, a plaintiff can only succeed if in addition to pleading it and particulars thereof, he or she must also show the duty of care owed to him or her by the defendant and the breach of that duty by the defendant. It is not enough to allege all these in pleadings without establishing them by credible and reliable evidence at the trial.

In the case of Anyah V. Imo Concorde Hotels Ltd & 2 ors (2002) 18 NWLR (pt. 799) at page 377, this court held-

"For the defendant to be liable for negligence there must be either an admission by him or sufficient evidence adduced to support a finding of negligence on his part."

And it went further to hold -

"The most fundamental ingredient of the tort of negligence is the breach of the duty of care which must be actionable in law and not a moral liability. And until a plaintiff can prove by evidence the actual breach of the duty of care against the defendant, the action must fail. See Benson V. Utubor (1975) 3SC 19; Okoli V. Nwagu (1960) SC NLR 48; (1960) 3 FSC 16; Nigerian Airways Ltd V. Abe (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 90) 524; Strabag Construction (Nig) Ltd V. Ogarekpe (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 170)733."

And per George Adesola Oguntade, J.S.C., the Supreme Court of Nigeria further elaborated:


Negligence has been described as being the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable man would not do. (per Alderson B. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (11856) 11 Ex at 784, cited by Lord Reid in Bolton v. Stone (1951) A.C. at 865, and applied in Prosser v. Levy (1955) 1 W.L.R. 1224. to maintain an action for negligence it must be shown (a) that there was a duty on the part of the defendant towards the person injured (b) that the defendant negligently performed or omitted to perform his duty (c) that such negligence was the effective causes of injury of damage to the plaintiff. See Mc Dowall v. G. W. Ry (1903) 2 K.B. at page 338. The onus of proving that the result of the negligence was the effective cause of the injury is upon the plaintiff. See Ruoff v. Long (1916) 1 K.B. 152. The defendant is responsible for all the consequences he could foresee or reasonably be expected to foresee as the natural result of his negligent act or his negligent act or omission See Clark v. Chambers (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 327. The defendant is also liable for all the direct physical consequences even though they could not have been foreseen. See Ire Polemis and Rurness Withy (1921) 3K.B. 560. The statement of claim 'ought to state the facts upon which the supposed duty is founded and the duty to the plaintiff with the breach of which the defendant is charged'. Particulars must be given in the pleading showing in which respect the defendant was negligent, and the details of the damage sustained. An express allegation of duty on the part of the defendant is a mere inference of law.

The Torts Law of Anambra State 1986 Cap. 135 would appear to have encapsulated the common law principles of torts and nuisance. Sections 217, 218 and 251 of the aforesaid Torts Law provide:



"Section 217 of the said Torts Law provides on negligence as follows:



217. Negligence as civil wrong shall consist of breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, which may not have been desired or even contemplated by the person committing the breach, to the person to whom the duty is owing.



218. Subject to this Law, every person shall have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid any act or omission which he is reasonably expected to foresee as likely to injure persons who are so closely and directly affected by his acts or omissions that he ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when he is directing his mind to any such act or commission.

It ought generally to be borne in mind however that negligence is a question of fact not law, and each case must be decided in the light of its own facts. See Kalla v. Jarmakani Transport Ltd. [1961] All N.L. R. 74. It is also settled principle of law that in an action based on the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care and that he suffered damage in consequence of the defendant's failure to take care. See Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. v. C.F.A. O. Ltd. [1967] N.M.L.R. 173.

Basically, OP you stand on higher grounds and he stands on an extremely shaky foundation.

If you must pity him, let the cost of the damage be quantified and let him bear (anything more than 51% of the cost of the damages, ideally aim for 70% in lieu of pursuing your rightful and legal claims against him). I suggest you ask him to get a lawyer, so you both sit at a table to negotiate this issue, his lawyer should let him know, that the law is on your side, so he better play ball your way.

So do not waive your rights away by agreeing to the obnoxious condition that he should repair the damages he has created, tell him you want the repair money, you would rather fix it yourself at another mechanic, since he has destroyed the trust you reposed in him.

Now to the subsidiary issue: If a vehicle suffers frame or structural damage, it is unsafe to drive. That brings to my mind, all those cases I keep seeing in which local mechanics cut a car into two and take a good half from one car to join to another good half, if I had a way of knowing that that had happened, I would never buy such a car or be driven in one.

If indeed as some experts attest that the vehicle has suffered structural/frame damage, it is not safe to drive.

if you sell the whole vehicle as scrap at a go, you will not make more than 180,000 to 250,000.00 but you will get money en bloc.

If you part it out bit by bit, you can earn more than the worth of the car at the moment, or even the worth of the car tokunbo, but the issue is you cannot determine how long that will take.

So have got to make a trade-off here, and I do not think the appropriate trade-off is to absorb all the losses yourself when you are not in any way at fault here!

I hope that I have helped you to know what your rights are, and what your remedies are, so you can make an informed decision in the circumstance.

Good luck.