Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Revati Kale seeks payment of the unpaid balance for two banners ordered by Nikhil Bendre. The shared order record states a total price of ₹12,000, a ₹6,000 advance, and delivery by 10 a.m. on the promotion date. Nikhil replied, “Confirmed.” Revati asks for the remaining ₹6,000. 2. Revati acknowledges that one banner had the wrong phone number and that its correction arrived after the promised time. She says both corrected banners were put up for the promotion. Nikhil asks for a reasonable reduction because of the delay, but has not specified a proven loss or a supported amount beyond seeking a reduction from the balance. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Revati proved the agreed price and unpaid balance, and whether Nikhil proved a basis to reduce that balance because of the late correction. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support it with facts or evidence. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported assertions. Rule 18 recognizes that business records can establish the parties’ agreement. Under Rule 6, a remedy should match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 4. Revati relies on the confirmed order, which records the price, advance, and deadline. She accepts that one correction was late, but argues that the order contains no automatic discount and that Nikhil’s proposed ₹3,000 reduction was rejected. She says the corrected banners were put up and seeks the full remaining ₹6,000. She also acknowledges that she cannot provide a more exact time or independent proof of the banners’ use. 5. Nikhil relies on the 10 a.m. deadline and asks for a reasonable reduction for delay. His submissions refer to the order and the fact that replacement banners were used, but do not explain a specific practical loss or provide evidence supporting a particular reduction. The references to ordinary wear do not address the issue in this business dispute. Evidence and findings 6. The order exchange appears as exhibits 3, 5, and 9. These are repeated presentations of the same described WhatsApp order, not three independent transactions. The record describes the exchange as listing two banners for ₹12,000, a ₹6,000 advance, and delivery by 10 a.m.; Nikhil’s confirmation is recorded. The exhibit descriptions identify no authenticity dispute. The order is direct, relevant evidence of the agreed price, payment, and deadline. It does not state a discount for late correction. 7. The record also includes Revati’s repeated account that one correction was late and that the corrected banners were put up for the promotion. Her account is an attributed submission, not an independent document or witness statement. It is nevertheless an express acknowledgment against her interest on the timing. The exact time and practical effect remain uncertain. Revati says she has no further obtainable information on those details. 8. Nikhil’s submissions establish that he relies on the deadline, but the deadline is already shown by the order. His submissions do not provide a separate record of lost sales, unusable banners, additional expense, or another concrete consequence. Nor do they explain how the requested reduction corresponds to a demonstrated loss. The court does not treat the proposed ₹3,000 reduction as an agreement: Revati says she rejected it, and the order contains no such term. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Revati has met her burden. The order records the total price and advance, and Nikhil’s confirmation supports that the order was accepted. The arithmetic leaves ₹6,000 unpaid. The same record establishes the 10 a.m. deadline, but that term does not itself state that missing it automatically cancels or reduces the price. The issue of agreed price and unpaid balance is established. 10. On the second issue, the court accepts that the correction was late. That is a real departure from the agreed timing and is not erased by the fact that the corrected banners were put up. But the question is whether Nikhil has proved a basis and amount for reducing the balance. The burden for that requested reduction rests on Nikhil under Rule 1. The record does not establish how late the correction was, what specific harm followed, or a reasonable amount attributable to that harm. Revati’s account that the banners were put up is relevant, but does not conclusively establish their usefulness or the absence of any loss. The uncertainty cuts both ways; it does not supply proof of a particular deduction. 11. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to proven harm. The court cannot select a reduction by guesswork, and the rejected proposal is not a substitute for proof or agreement. Nikhil has therefore not proved that any particular amount should be withheld. This finding does not declare that the late correction was acceptable; it means only that the record does not support a monetary reduction. The late-correction issue is not proven as a basis for reducing the balance. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Revati Kale on her claim for the unpaid balance. Nikhil Bendre must pay Revati ₹6,000 (six thousand rupees). No reduction is allowed on the evidence presented. No additional amount, interest, or costs are awarded because none is supported by the supplied record. The claim is granted to the extent of the ₹6,000 balance and otherwise no further relief is ordered.