In Hanoi, Mercedes owner appeals $26 compensation, seeks review of additional $2,900 damage

Do Bich Ngoc, owner of a Mercedes-Benz GLC200 damaged in the incident, said on Wednesday that she had filed an appeal against the criminal judgment issued by a court in the capital.

In her appeal, Ngoc asked the appellate court to reconsider the assessment of evidence, the scope of the damage, the liability of those involved, the civil compensation ruling and the sentence imposed on Mai Thi Bich Van, 65.

Ngoc had previously sought nearly VND470 million ($18,160) in compensation.

However, the first-instance court ordered Van to pay Ngoc just over VND671,000 ($26) directly, in addition to more than VND6.2 million ($239) in compensation to two insurance companies.

One of the key issues raised in the appeal concerns damage to the Mercedes’ left side mirror and left headlight assembly.

An inspection of the car identified one damaged mark on the left side mirror cover and four marks on the left headlight assembly, Ngoc said.

A valuation report dated March 31, assessed the damage to the side mirror at VND16.3 million ($630) and the damage to the headlight assembly at VND59.416 million ($2,296), bringing the total to VND75.716 million ($2,926).

However, the first-instance judgment did not attribute responsibility for these items of damage to the defendant, according to the appeal.

Ngoc argued that the failure of the assessment to establish the precise cause of the marks did not, in itself, provide sufficient grounds to rule out the defendant’s liability.

She asked the appellate court to examine the original video footage and compare the timing and direction of the impact of a hard object against the vehicle with the damage documented during the inspection.

She also requested that the appraiser be summoned to explain the findings or that an additional assessment be conducted if necessary.

If the damage to the side mirror and left headlight assembly is determined to have been caused by Van, the total damage to the Mercedes could reach VND82.578 million ($3,190), Ngoc said.

That figure does not include additional damage to the bumper, which was valued at VND975,000 ($37.6).

Another issue Ngoc wants the appellate court to review concerns the defendant’s claim that she had previously demanded VND200 million ($7,723) or asked Van to buy the car.

Ngoc denied demanding a fixed payment of VND200 million.

In her appeal, she explained that she had asked the defendant’s family to take responsibility for the damage, cover repair costs based on supporting documents and help pay for a change of license plate because of safety concerns.

Why did the court reject the nearly VND470 million compensation claim?

Beyond the damage to the side mirror and headlight assembly, Ngoc has asked the appellate court to reconsider losses arising from her inability to use the Mercedes after the incident.

According to the appeal, she had signed a vehicle rental contract at VND35 million ($1,350) per month, covering the period from January 25, 2026, to January 25, 2027.

However, the car was impounded and subsequently required repairs, preventing her from handing it over to the renter as agreed.

She has asked the court to reassess the period during which the car could not be used commercially and the resulting loss of income.

Ngoc has also requested a review of expenses incurred for alternative transportation, the vehicle’s diminished market value following repairs and the supporting documents relevant to calculating compensation.

At the first-instance trial, Ngoc sought total compensation of VND470 million.

However, the court determined that Van was liable for just over VND6.8 million ($265) in damages, including more than VND6.2 million payable to the two insurance companies and VND671,000 payable directly to the vehicle owner.

The court rejected her claims for lost rental income, transportation expenses and diminished commercial value to the extent sought, citing insufficient supporting evidence.

Defendant sentenced to 6 months’ suspended imprisonment

The incident occurred on January 18, when Ngoc parked her Mercedes outside Van’s house in Hanoi.

Believing the vehicle was obstructing access to her property, Van used a key to scratch the car.

The first-instance judgment stated that Ngoc’s decision to park outside Van’s house had made it difficult for Van’s family to enter and leave the property, leading to the incident.

Nevertheless, the court found that Van’s act of deliberately scratching the vehicle with a key constituted intentional damage to property.

She was given a six-month suspended sentence.

Disagreeing with several aspects of the court’s assessment, Ngoc has asked the appellate court to reconsider the evidence, the allocation of civil liability and the grounds on which Van was granted a suspended sentence.