Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nandini Kale seeks return of an ₹8,000 advance paid to Farhan Qureshi for a bookshelf, together with ₹10,000 in additional compensation. Farhan agrees that he received the advance, that the bookshelf was not delivered, and that he has not returned the money. The parties were invited to make final statements, and both have done so. This judgment decides the claims on the hearing record and the supplied rules. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the ₹8,000 advance remains unpaid; what the record establishes about the delivery agreement and performance; and whether Nandini has proved a basis for the additional ₹10,000. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 21 directs attention to the agreement's terms, while Rule 22 recognizes that a material failure can affect the remedy. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 3. Nandini says she paid ₹8,000 and did not receive the bookshelf or a refund. She asks for the advance and ₹10,000 compensation. In her later statement, she says the compensation is for lost time and calls it a minimum amount. She also alleges that Farhan falsely claimed repayment and suggests that photographs could be edited. The record, however, contains no photograph or repayment document to assess; the presented exhibits are UPI payment records. 4. Farhan says the agreed date was 15 June, that the parties discussed delay, and that Nandini later asked when he could come. He acknowledges that this does not prove she agreed to a new date. He says the bookshelf was ready on 18 June but has no separate record supporting that assertion. Farhan admits it was not delivered and the ₹8,000 was not returned. In his final statement, he asks the court to limit relief to the advance because no specific additional loss is shown. Evidence and findings 5. The UPI payment record, presented as exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8, shows that Nandini paid Farhan ₹8,000 for the bookshelf. The record describes the payment as undisputed. It proves receipt of the advance, not repayment. Farhan's statements 4 and 8 expressly confirm that he has not returned it. Nandini's allegation of non-repayment is thus supported by both the payment record and Farhan's admission. 6. Non-delivery is also established. Farhan expressly says the bookshelf was not delivered, and Nandini says she did not receive it. Farhan's assertion that it was ready on 18 June is an unsupported account, not a produced record. His account of a possible later visit does not establish that Nandini accepted a changed date. The exact terms of the delivery agreement are not fully established, but the record does establish that the promised item was never delivered. 7. The additional-compensation evidence is limited to Nandini's request and her explanation that it concerns lost time. No details or records show what time was lost, what consequence followed, or how the requested ₹10,000 was calculated. Farhan acknowledges the claim but says he has no evidence of a specific loss beyond the advance. His statement is not proof that no loss occurred; the decisive point is that Nandini bears the burden of supporting the additional amount and the record does not do so. Reasons 8. On the advance, Nandini has met her burden. The payment record is direct evidence that she paid ₹8,000. Farhan's admission that he neither delivered the bookshelf nor returned the money removes any material dispute about whether the advance remains with him. The court need not decide whether Farhan's claim that the bookshelf was ready is true: even if it was ready, the record establishes it was not delivered and the advance was not repaid. The request for return of ₹8,000 is therefore justified. 9. The court has considered the uncertainty about the precise delivery date and any discussion of delay. Rule 21 makes the agreed terms important, and the record does not establish every term or prove that a new date was accepted. That uncertainty does not defeat the refund claim here. Farhan admits non-delivery and non-repayment, and offers no evidence of an agreed change that would establish performance. The court does not find that every delay automatically requires a refund; it finds that this record shows an undelivered bookshelf and an advance still held by Farhan. Returning that advance is a proportionate remedy for the established failure, consistent with Rule 22. 10. Nandini has not met her burden for the additional ₹10,000. Rule 1 requires support for the requested relief, and Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the harm shown. Nandini's statement that she lost time is an attributed account, but it does not describe a particular loss or explain the amount. The UPI record proves the advance only. Non-delivery supports return of that advance, but does not by itself establish a further ₹10,000 loss. The court therefore denies the additional compensation without finding that Nandini experienced no inconvenience. 11. Nandini's allegation that Farhan made a false repayment claim does not change the result. Farhan's final statements expressly acknowledge non-repayment, and the record contains no evidence of a repayment. The court relies on that admission and the payment record, not on the allegation of dishonesty. Likewise, the suggestion that photographs could be edited does not affect the decision because no photograph is relied upon as proof. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Nandini Kale on the claim for return of the advance. Farhan Qureshi must pay Nandini ₹8,000, in the same currency as the claim. The request for an additional ₹10,000 compensation is denied. The total amount awarded is ₹8,000. This order grants partial relief: it returns the proven, unpaid advance but does not award additional compensation unsupported by the record. No other monetary relief is awarded.