A Phone Call Is Not a Signature: Brakes, a Battery Warranty and an Instagram Post
A 2016 hatchback is booked for a 60,000 km periodic service. The job card lists engine oil, oil filter and 'check brakes'. On inspection, the front discs measure 19.6 mm against a minimum of 21.0 mm and the pads are at 2 mm; the revised estimate is ₹6,800. The owner, speaking from a shop floor on the phone, says, 'Do whatever is needed, I will pay,' and ends the call before signing the revised estimate. The car also has an expired PUC certificate and a bald spare. In the glovebox is a battery warranty card showing 48 months, issued 8 months ago, but the date code stamped on the battery shows it was made 3 years ago. A trainee photographs the number plate and posts it on Instagram with the caption 'another dead engine'.
1. What must be documented before the extra brake work proceeds, and how would you close out the case if approval never arrives in writing?
Read the worked answer
Before work starts: raise a revised estimate with line items - disc pair, pad set, labour, taxes - and the measured values against the manufacturer's minimum thickness. Record the disc measurement 19.6 mm and the minimum 21.0 mm, and the pad figure of 2 mm, on the job card with the measuring tool used. Take photographs of the discs and pads with a scale in frame.
Approval: a verbal 'do whatever is needed' is not a blank cheque. Note the time of the call, the number dialled and who spoke, then send the estimate by message or email and ask for a reply confirming. Work starts when the confirmation is on record. If the customer is unreachable, do not proceed with the extra work; complete only what was originally authorised.
If approval never arrives: reassemble the vehicle safely, write a clear safety advisory on the invoice stating that the front discs are below minimum thickness and the vehicle should not be driven until they are replaced, hand it over with the keys, and keep a copy. Never release a car with below-minimum brakes silently - if there is an accident, the missing advisory is the workshop's problem.
Also record: the expired PUC and the bald spare, advised but not authorised.
2. How would you deal with the battery warranty card that does not match the date code, and why is this an ethical issue rather than just paperwork?
Read the worked answer
The mismatch. A card issued 8 months ago for a 48-month warranty cannot belong to a battery manufactured 3 years ago, unless the battery was old stock sold late, or the card belongs to a different battery. Both are possible; neither can be assumed.
What to do: do not alter, overwrite or re-date the card. Photograph the stamped date code and the card together. Ask the customer where and when the battery was bought and whether they have the invoice. Then contact the battery maker's authorised dealer with the stamped code and let them verify the warranty start date; some makers start warranty from the date of sale to the first customer, which can legitimately differ from the manufacture date.
Why it is ethical, not clerical. Submitting a claim with a date you know is wrong is misrepresentation, and it can cost the customer their warranty entirely if the maker finds out. It is also unfair to the maker and to the next customer who relies on honest warranty data. The customer also deserves to know if they were sold old stock as new. Report the finding in writing, let the maker decide, and record what you advised. Do not use the discrepancy as a reason to sell a new battery either - diagnose the battery first with a conductance test.
3. The trainee's Instagram post and the vehicle's legal condition both need action. What do you do, and what rule would you set for the workshop?
Read the worked answer
The post. It shows the customer's number plate and a mocking caption - a privacy breach and a reputational risk. Ask the trainee to delete it immediately, confirm it is gone, inform the supervisor and the customer if the post was public and identifiable, and apologise. Handle it as a training issue first: the trainee probably did not think about the plate. But repeat behaviour needs a disciplinary response, because the workshop is responsible for customer data.
The rule. No photographs of customer vehicles on personal social media. Workshop photographs are taken only for job-card evidence, with the plate masked or cropped, stored in the workshop system, and used only for the repair record or with written customer consent for marketing.
The legal condition. An expired PUC is a compliance issue for the owner, and the workshop should advise it clearly on the job card. Offer the PUC test if the workshop is authorised to do it; if not, say where it can be done. The bald spare is not a legal failure but is a real roadside risk; advise replacement and record that advice. Both items go in the handover notes, not just in conversation.