District Court orders agreed 2,200 AFN refund over rechargeable fan dispute

The District Court in Afghanistan ordered a settlement on October 13, 2026, under which Farid Ahmadi will return a rechargeable fan and its charger to Nasir Rahmani and receive a 2,200 AFN refund. Presiding judge Chris signed the order, resolving Farid's request to return the fan and recover its purchase price through the parties' agreement.

The signed judgment also records that both parties agree to test the fan and charger together to ensure that they work. It does not decide whether either item was defective when sold.

The formal judgment rests on the parties' confirmation of their settlement, rather than a finding about the alleged charging failure. Its brief terms contain no explanation assigning responsibility for the problem.

During the hearing, Chris adjourned proceedings for two days so the fan and charger could be tested together. When proceedings resumed, Nasir said he had tested the items and prepared a report, but repeatedly said he could not reliably state its result. The supplied record contains no substantive test result.

That gap leaves a central distinction unresolved: showing that the fan ran in the shop did not establish whether it could recharge. Nasir acknowledged that the demonstration had not tested charging.

Farid said the fan ran briefly before purchase but would not charge at home. He relied on his receipt and messages reporting the problem that evening, while acknowledging that he had no photograph or test report documenting his first charging attempt.

Nasir said Farid accepted the fan after seeing it run. He maintained that his message offering an exchange or refund was conditional on a charging failure and that he had asked Farid to bring both items for inspection.

Nasir later proposed refunding 2,200 AFN if Farid returned the fan and charger, with an exchange as an alternative. Farid accepted the refund proposal, and both confirmed those terms to the court.

The dispute arose from a shop purchase followed by a same-evening complaint. Before the hearing, no inspection had been completed; Farid said the problem remained unchecked, while Nasir said he had been waiting to inspect both items.

The agreement provides a return-and-refund outcome without resolving the competing accounts of the equipment's condition. The judgment records the refund and joint-testing terms, but does not state that either has already been carried out.