Civil Court, Pune orders return of ₹8,000 advance for undelivered bookshelf
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
A UPI record confirmed the payment, and the maker admitted he had neither delivered the bookshelf nor repaid it. The court denied a further ₹10,000 for lack of evidence of a specific loss.
Read the original in-game verdictThe decision
The Civil Court, Pune ordered Farhan Qureshi to return the ₹8,000 advance Nandini Kale paid for a bookshelf that was never delivered. It denied her separate request for ₹10,000 in compensation, granting her partial relief.
The dispute turned on what followed a missed installation date: Kale said she had not agreed to a new deadline, while Qureshi pointed to their later discussion about when he could come. The court found it did not need to settle every detail of the delivery agreement to decide the refund claim.
The court's reasons
A UPI record showed that Kale paid Qureshi ₹8,000. It established receipt of the advance, not repayment; Qureshi also expressly admitted that he had neither delivered the bookshelf nor returned the money.
Qureshi said the bookshelf was ready on 18 June, but produced no separate record supporting that account. The court said it did not need to decide whether the claim was true: even if the bookshelf was ready, it had not been delivered and the advance remained unpaid.
The court distinguished the refund from the additional compensation. Kale said she had lost time, but the record did not describe a particular loss, its consequences or how the ₹10,000 was calculated. Denying that amount did not mean she had experienced no inconvenience.
The parties' submissions
Kale sought the return of her advance and described the additional ₹10,000 as a minimum amount for lost time. She also alleged that Qureshi had falsely claimed repayment and suggested photographs could be edited.
Qureshi acknowledged the payment, non-delivery and non-repayment. He said the parties had discussed the delay and Kale later asked when he could come, but accepted that her question did not prove agreement to a new date. He asked the court to limit relief to the supported amount.
The judgment said there was no photograph or repayment document to assess. It relied on the payment record and Qureshi's admission, rather than the allegation of dishonesty.
The background
The parties agreed to fabrication and installation of the bookshelf in Pune for ₹12,000, with ₹8,000 paid in advance. Messages set 15 June 2025 as the installation deadline, but the bookshelf was not installed that day.
The court said the exact delivery terms were not fully established and no accepted new date had been proved. Its decision did not mean every delay automatically requires a refund: the decisive facts here were non-delivery and the unpaid advance.