Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leena Naik seeks the return of ₹1,800 paid to TidyNest Home Care for a cleaning appointment at her Pune flat on 18 February 2026. The booking confirmation records an arrival window of 10 a.m. to noon. Leena says no cleaning took place and asks for the full payment back. TidyNest says its worker called and Leena did not answer, but it has not produced a call or arrival record. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to explain their positions and address the central evidentiary gap. Leena says she has no separate record showing what happened at the flat or whether anyone arrived earlier. TidyNest’s final submission asks that the refund be rejected but supplies no further supporting evidence. The decision must therefore be made on the record available, without treating either side’s unsupported assertion as established fact. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Leena paid for a cleaning appointment with a defined time window, and whether the evidence establishes that the service was not provided in a way that entitles her to a refund of ₹1,800. 4. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague accounts. Rule 37 requires a service provider to honor specific promises about timing and service. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. These are the supplied rules applied here; no other legal rule is assumed. Submissions of the parties 5. Leena relies on the booking confirmation, which records payment and the 10 a.m.–noon window. She says the cleaning was not done and that the only call shown in the screenshot referred to by the parties was at 12:24 p.m., after the window. She acknowledges that she had left by then and cannot independently prove whether a cleaner arrived or tried to contact her earlier. She continues to seek the full ₹1,800. 6. TidyNest says its worker called and Leena did not answer, and argues that the refund should be rejected. It suggests that access may have been unavailable. But it has not provided a call log, arrival record, or other evidence showing when the worker called or whether the worker attended during the agreed window. Its assertion is relevant as a competing account, but it is not proof by itself. Evidence and findings 7. The paid booking confirmation is presented as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated as exhibits 5-e1 and 7-e1. These are duplicate descriptions of the same confirmation, not three independent records. The confirmation is strong evidence that Leena paid ₹1,800 and that the appointment had a 10 a.m.–noon arrival window. TidyNest does not dispute those terms. Issue appointment-and-payment is established. 8. The record contains Leena’s attributed account that no cleaning occurred and that she received an unanswered call at 12:24 p.m. It also contains TidyNest’s assertion that its worker called and could not reach her. The screenshot itself is not separately presented as an exhibit. I therefore do not treat its contents as independently authenticated, although Leena’s account of its time is part of the record. Even accepting that the call was at 12:24 p.m., it would show an attempt after the agreed window, not whether there was an earlier attempt or arrival. 9. No record establishes that cleaning was completed. Equally, no reliable record establishes whether the worker attended or attempted contact during the window. Leena expressly acknowledges that she has no separate proof on that point. TidyNest has not substantiated its access explanation. The evidence thus leaves the events during the appointment window uncertain; neither party’s account resolves them. Reasons 10. Rule 37 makes the recorded time window important. Leena was entitled to rely on the 10 a.m.–noon appointment, and the 12:24 p.m. call described in the record does not, by itself, show that she was required to remain available after noon. TidyNest’s assertion of an unanswered call cannot establish a timely attempt without evidence of its timing. The absence of such evidence weakens TidyNest’s explanation, but it does not automatically prove every fact needed for Leena’s requested remedy. 11. The decisive question is whether Leena has proved that the service was not provided and that the payment should be returned. Her account supports that claim, but the record does not establish what happened at the flat during the window. The booking confirmation proves the agreement and payment, not non-performance. The described late call does not establish that no earlier attendance or attempt occurred. Leena’s candid acknowledgment that she cannot prove whether anyone arrived earlier is important to the limits of the evidence. 12. Under Rule 1, Leena bears the burden of supporting her request. TidyNest’s failure to produce records does not shift that burden or prove that it performed the service. Rather, the result is that the competing accounts remain unresolved. Because the evidence does not establish non-performance on the balance of the available record, Leena has not proved entitlement to the refund. Issue service-not-provided-and-refund is not proven. This finding is not an affirmative finding that TidyNest completed the cleaning or made a timely attempt; neither is established. 13. Rule 6 requires a remedy tied to proven harm. Since the factual basis for a refund has not been established, no monetary relief can be awarded. Leena seeks only the return of ₹1,800 on this record; no separate amount or alternative remedy is supported for decision. Final order 14. The issue of payment and the promised appointment window is established. The issue of non-performance and entitlement to a refund is not proven. 15. Leena Naik’s claim for a refund of ₹1,800 is denied. No payment is ordered from TidyNest Home Care to Leena, and no other relief is granted. This order decides the claim on the evidence presented and does not find that TidyNest performed the cleaning or attended during the agreed window.