Civil court in Tbilisi grants 120 GEL refund for kettle that continued leaking after repair

The Civil court in Tbilisi granted Salome Kapanadze’s claim for a 120 GEL refund against appliance seller Levan Japaridze, finding that her electric kettle more likely than not continued leaking after repair. Kapanadze had sought recovery of the purchase price in exchange for returning the kettle.

The court ordered Japaridze to pay the full purchase price and awarded no additional monetary relief. Although Kapanadze’s request contemplated returning the kettle, the final order did not expressly impose a return condition.

The decision rested on the purchase records, repair slip and messages between the parties. The court found that an attempted repair had not resolved the problem and that the proposed replacement, which had no delivery date, was not a definite, timely solution.

The court treated the purchase receipts as clear proof of the transaction and the undisputed 120 GEL price. The central evidentiary question was whether the defect remained after Kapanadze collected the kettle.

The repair slip established that Japaridze had adjusted and checked the seal. It did not record a test result or state that the leaking had stopped. Kapanadze’s signature acknowledged collection, not acceptance of a successful repair.

The messages contained Kapanadze’s prompt, specific report that the kettle still leaked. The court recognised that this was her own account, not an independent test, and did not conclusively establish the kettle’s physical condition. Nevertheless, its timing and specificity carried weight, particularly because Japaridze offered no contrary observation.

Weighing those records together, the court found the continued leak more likely than not proved. This was the threshold it applied to Kapanadze’s burden of supporting her claim with evidence.

Japaridze’s repair effort counted in his favour because he had been given a fair opportunity to correct the problem. It did not, however, establish a successful repair or require Kapanadze to wait indefinitely. Applying only the supplied rules on proof, repair opportunities, consumer promises and proportionate remedies, the court held that refunding the documented price matched the proven harm.

Kapanadze maintained that the kettle continued leaking after repair and that she should not have to wait an unknown period for a replacement. She relied on the purchase receipt and the message exchange to support her refund request.

Japaridze asked the court to consider his repair response when deciding whether to award the full price. He accepted that the repair slip and collection signature did not prove the repair worked, and that he had no further information about the kettle’s condition.

He also acknowledged that obtaining a replacement depended on supplier stock and that he could give no date. The court accepted Kapanadze’s concern about an indefinite wait, but did not treat the suggestion that it might last a year as evidence of an expected delay.

Kapanadze bought the kettle for 120 GEL and reported a leak within a week. Japaridze undertook a repair, after which she collected it and reported continued leaking.

Their subsequent messages recorded a conditional offer to try to obtain another kettle when supplier stock became available, followed by her request for repayment. No independent test confirming the post-repair leak was produced.

The outcome establishes a full refund on this record despite that evidentiary limitation. It is confined to the purchase price: the court made no finding about other damage, expenses or additional remedies.