Pokhara civil court denies NPR 8,000 menu-printing claim as total price remains unproven

The civil court serving Pokhara denied Sujata Karki’s claim for NPR 8,000 in unpaid charges for 200 café menus, finding that she had not sufficiently proved the agreed total price. It ordered no payment and granted no additional relief.

The dispute concerned whether a Friday afternoon delivery entitled buyer Prabin Adhikari to withhold part of the printing charge. But the decision turned on an earlier question: whether the evidence established Sujata’s claimed NPR 20,000 price. Prabin’s failure to prove an agreed discount did not, by itself, prove her entitlement to the balance.

The court accepted a mobile-banking confirmation as reliable proof that Prabin transferred NPR 12,000 to Sujata. His accompanying note described the menus as late and the transfer as full payment following a discussion. It showed that he raised his objection promptly, but recorded only his position—not terms accepted by both parties.

Sujata’s account of a NPR 20,000 agreement was evidence, the judgment explained, but lacked independent support in the record before the court. The formal judgment identified no invoice, message or witness account corroborating that figure. Repeated copies of the same transfer confirmation added no independent support.

The court did not reject Sujata’s account merely because it was unwritten. It found the evidence insufficient to establish the total price and resulting balance. Because she sought payment, that uncertainty fell on her.

Prabin separately failed to prove a discount. Neither the claimed binding noon deadline nor Sujata’s alleged acceptance of a reduced price was established. Prompt notice of a complaint mattered, but was not the same as mutual agreement.

Sujata maintained that both parties agreed on NPR 20,000 and that Prabin had withheld NPR 8,000 after receiving the menus. Her side described the withholding as theft, an accusation the court treated as argument rather than proof of the contractual price.

Prabin asked the court to deny or reduce the claim because of late delivery and an asserted discussion about reduced payment. He acknowledged that his payment note did not prove Sujata’s consent and that he had no separate record establishing either an agreed discount or a binding noon deadline.

The supplied background describes an order for 200 menus intended for a café’s Friday lunch launch. Prabin requested delivery before noon; Sujata confirmed Friday delivery and said she would try for the morning. The menus arrived around 4 p.m., and Prabin kept them.

Although the background also describes an invoice stating NPR 20,000 and Friday delivery, the formal judgment expressly found no invoice in the evidentiary record. The ruling therefore rests on the narrower material assessed by the court.

The result establishes neither that NPR 12,000 was the agreed price nor that late delivery justified a deduction. It leaves those asserted terms unproven while rejecting the particular balance Sujata sought.