Is the inquirer legally obligated to pay the repair bill for six air conditioners that broke down due to an unintentional technical error by his technician, especially given that the technician was unaware of the existence of electrical panels not equipped with a neutral wire except through the cable he disconnected, and that the company that carried out the repair is expensive and was not chosen by the inquirer?

If a worker damages something, he is liable for what he damaged, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Lack of intent removes sin but does not remove liability. The liability falls on the technician. The rule concerning liability is that fungible goods are guaranteed by their like, or by what is closest to them, and non-fungible goods are guaranteed by their value. If repair is possible, it takes precedence over replacement. If the hall owner makes changes without referring to the one who caused the damage, the matter should be presented to three companies to ascertain the cost of repair, and the average should be taken and given to the hall owner.