Pune civil court awards ₹6,000 banner balance, rejects deduction for late correction

A civil court in Pune has ordered Nikhil Bendre to pay Revati Kale the full ₹6,000 outstanding on an order for two promotional banners, rejecting his request for a reduction because one banner needed a late correction. No additional amount, interest or costs were awarded.

The dispute turned on the difference between proving a missed deadline and proving what should be deducted for it. The court accepted that the correction was late, but found that Bendre had not established a specific loss or a supported amount to withhold.

The confirmed WhatsApp order established a ₹12,000 price, a ₹6,000 advance and delivery by 10 a.m. on the promotion date. It supported both Kale’s claim for the balance and Bendre’s position that morning delivery was part of the bargain. It contained no automatic discount for delay.

Kale acknowledged that one banner had the wrong phone number and that its correction arrived late. The court treated that acknowledgment as significant, while distinguishing her account from independent documentary or witness evidence. It found that the exact timing and practical effect remained uncertain.

Using the corrected banners did not erase the delay. Equally, their use did not conclusively prove that they were useful or that Bendre suffered no loss. But that uncertainty could not supply evidence of a particular deduction.

Bendre provided no separate record of lost sales, additional expense, unusable banners or another concrete consequence. His proposed ₹3,000 reduction was not an agreement, and he did not explain how it matched a demonstrated loss. The court therefore declined to choose a deduction by guesswork.

Kale relied on the confirmed price and advance payment. She accepted the late correction but said she had rejected Bendre’s proposal to reduce the balance by ₹3,000. Both banners were put up for the promotion, she submitted, although she could not provide independent proof of their use or a more exact time.

Bendre sought a reasonable reduction, stressing the agreed 10 a.m. deadline and the importance of timing to his promotion. His submissions maintained that using the replacements did not defeat that request. The court found that his references to ordinary wear did not address the payment dispute.

The order required two banners for a promotion, with half the price paid upfront. A wrong phone number on one banner led to a correction and then disagreement over the remaining payment: Bendre offered another ₹3,000, while Kale sought the full ₹6,000 balance.

The ruling does not treat late correction as acceptable or establish that delay can never justify a price reduction. Its narrower conclusion is that the evidence presented did not support a monetary deduction from this agreed balance.