ASHISH2030
New member
- Loss Amount
- 1500000
- Ratings
Here is a condensed, complaint-ready summary of the matter, organized to track the original document while staying under 10,000 characters.
Consumer Complaint Summary: Mercury Creators / Hardik Ashok Bhai Panchal
Complainant: Mrs. Bharati Mantri (w/o Ashish Mantri), aged 37, resident of D-41, Alankar Tenament, TP-13, Chhani Jakat Naka, Vadodara 390024.
Opposite Party: Mercury Creators, proprietor Hardik Ashok Bhai Panchal, engaged for a turnkey interior project.
Contract value: INR 25,00,001/-. Order date: 18 January 2025.
Background and Contract Formation
The complainant approached Mercury Creators in December 2024 after finding the firm through Google and met proprietor Hardik Panchal at his office. Following site measurements and a revised quotation shared on 11 January 2025, the parties finalised a turnkey interior project for INR 25,00,001/- on 18 January 2025, with a 10% advance cheque issued the same day and a formal receipt for INR 2,50,000/- following on 21 January 2025.
Commencement and Early Progress
Site work began by late February to March 2025. Through 2025 the complainant made regular progress payments: INR 7,50,000/- on 26 March, INR 2,00,000/- on 17 September, and INR 4,50,000/- on 29 September, alongside continuous design finalisation meetings covering false ceiling, wardrobes, kitchen, temple, master bedroom, curtains and hardware. Even at this early stage, recurring issues emerged, including undisclosed laminate brands, resistance to client-requested design changes, and admitted construction defects such as inconsistent staircase sizing.
Escalating Delays and Unauthorised Demands
From October 2025 onward, Hardik Panchal repeatedly cited personal travel, family emergencies, wedding-season labour shortages, and a "GST-related issue" as reasons for stalled work. In October 2025 he demanded an unplanned advance of INR 4,00,000/- to continue work, a term not part of the original agreement; after objection, the complainant paid INR 3,00,000/- on 2 November 2025 on the understanding that specified remaining work would follow. By early November 2025, roughly 80% of the contract value had been paid while work remained under 50% complete, a disparity the complainant raised repeatedly in writing.
Through November 2025 to February 2026, the complainant documented a pattern of site visits finding no workers present, unanswered calls, housing society complaints about construction debris left in common areas for months, and warnings that the pace of work (often a single worker) made timely completion impossible. Quality complaints during this period included mismatched wardrobe laminate and unapproved hardware brands substituted without consent.
Written Completion Commitment and Its Breach
On 16 March 2026, following continued non-performance and after an additional payment of INR 80,000/- to a colour vendor on 3 March 2026, Hardik Panchal gave a written commitment to complete all remaining work by 15 April 2026, a date tied to a planned Vastu Puja on 19 April 2026. This deadline passed without completion. Through April 2026 the complainant issued repeated reminders and a formal warning that continued inaction would result in the complainant staying at Panchal's office daily until work was completed. Promised actions, including stone work and a final handover, did not materialise as assured.
Breakdown of the Relationship
Between May and June 2026, Panchal repeatedly promised imminent handover (including a specific commitment on 16 May 2026 to deliver keys within a week) without follow-through, and largely stopped responding to numbered written reminders (Reminders 1 through 5, 18 to 29 May 2026). On 3 June 2026, a site inspection found no worker present for the preceding 15 days and documented extensive incomplete and defective items across the flat. The complainant recorded Panchal's reported remark that, having already received over 80% of payment, the client's suffering did not matter to him. On 15 June 2026, the complainant issued formal written notice detailing the payment-to-progress disparity, the elapsed time (over seven months beyond initial delay points), and the resulting financial and mental distress, and stated regret at having engaged him.
On 16 June 2026, for the first time, Panchal demanded a further INR 4,00,000/-, acknowledging he had agreed to design changes without discussing cost impact, and offered to finish within a week if paid. The complainant rejected this, noting major design elements had been finalised before work began, listed specific ongoing defects (incorrect laminate and stone work, misplaced lighting, unapproved hardware, a cracked bed base, unfinished sharp corners), and formally demanded return of the advance if he could not complete the work.
Daily follow-up through late June and into July 2026 continued to show missed appointments, no qualified tradespeople on site, and visible deterioration of previously completed work (laminate breaking, colour peeling, fittings cracking). On 1 July 2026, Panchal admitted in writing that work was stalled for want of further payment, and a consolidated payment receipt for INR 20,30,000/- was finally issued, more than a year after the first advance.
Formal Withdrawal of Services
On 4 July 2026, Hardik Panchal formally withdrew from the project via WhatsApp, citing financial constraints and lack of liquid funds, and declined to complete the remaining scope (curtains, sofa/dining set, balcony furnishings, wall fan and shower curtains), offering only to help source alternative vendors.
Post-Withdrawal Disputes
Following withdrawal, disputes continued over: return of all main-door keys (only one of four returned despite repeated requests); a detailed itemised list of pending and defective work sent on 9 July 2026; missing two-year warranty certificates for light fixtures; unauthorised substitution of hinge and channel brands; a shortfall of one paid-for stone slab never supplied; and a formal financial reconciliation showing INR 20,30,000/- (approximately 81%) paid against a project that had run more than 300 days beyond its originally promised 90 to 120 day timeline.
The complainant also obtained an assessment from an authorised Asian Paints representative indicating that the finish sold as "Deco/PU paint" was in fact ordinary oil-based satin paint, and an independent vendor estimate of approximately INR 10,00,000/- to rectify defects and complete pending work. The complainant put Panchal on notice of intended legal proceedings and separately noted an alleged cheque-dishonour conviction against him dated 3 July 2026.
On 13 July 2026, Panchal replied denying most quality complaints, agreeing only to proportionate deductions for pending items, conditioning further completion and warranty documentation on additional payment, and disputing the claimed loss figure and the cheque-dishonour allegations. Through July and into August 2026, repeated promises to replace a flat lock and deliver remaining kitchen and profile items went unfulfilled.
Current Status
As of the date of this document, Mercury Creators / Hardik Panchal has received approximately INR 20,30,000/- of the INR 25,00,001/- contract value (about 81%), formally withdrew from the project on 4 July 2026, and completed only approximately 60% of the agreed turnkey scope. The flat remains neither liveable nor handed over more than eighteen months after signing, well beyond every completion timeline promised, including the written 15 April 2026 commitment.
Reliefs likely to be sought: completion or cost of completion of pending work, compensation for defective work and required rectification (independently estimated at approximately INR 14,60,000/-), return of undelivered items or their value (including the short-supplied stone slab), delivery of missing warranty documentation, compensation for delay and mental/financial distress, and return of proportionate advance if work is not completed.
Consumer Complaint Summary: Mercury Creators / Hardik Ashok Bhai Panchal
Complainant: Mrs. Bharati Mantri (w/o Ashish Mantri), aged 37, resident of D-41, Alankar Tenament, TP-13, Chhani Jakat Naka, Vadodara 390024.
Opposite Party: Mercury Creators, proprietor Hardik Ashok Bhai Panchal, engaged for a turnkey interior project.
Contract value: INR 25,00,001/-. Order date: 18 January 2025.
Background and Contract Formation
The complainant approached Mercury Creators in December 2024 after finding the firm through Google and met proprietor Hardik Panchal at his office. Following site measurements and a revised quotation shared on 11 January 2025, the parties finalised a turnkey interior project for INR 25,00,001/- on 18 January 2025, with a 10% advance cheque issued the same day and a formal receipt for INR 2,50,000/- following on 21 January 2025.
Commencement and Early Progress
Site work began by late February to March 2025. Through 2025 the complainant made regular progress payments: INR 7,50,000/- on 26 March, INR 2,00,000/- on 17 September, and INR 4,50,000/- on 29 September, alongside continuous design finalisation meetings covering false ceiling, wardrobes, kitchen, temple, master bedroom, curtains and hardware. Even at this early stage, recurring issues emerged, including undisclosed laminate brands, resistance to client-requested design changes, and admitted construction defects such as inconsistent staircase sizing.
Escalating Delays and Unauthorised Demands
From October 2025 onward, Hardik Panchal repeatedly cited personal travel, family emergencies, wedding-season labour shortages, and a "GST-related issue" as reasons for stalled work. In October 2025 he demanded an unplanned advance of INR 4,00,000/- to continue work, a term not part of the original agreement; after objection, the complainant paid INR 3,00,000/- on 2 November 2025 on the understanding that specified remaining work would follow. By early November 2025, roughly 80% of the contract value had been paid while work remained under 50% complete, a disparity the complainant raised repeatedly in writing.
Through November 2025 to February 2026, the complainant documented a pattern of site visits finding no workers present, unanswered calls, housing society complaints about construction debris left in common areas for months, and warnings that the pace of work (often a single worker) made timely completion impossible. Quality complaints during this period included mismatched wardrobe laminate and unapproved hardware brands substituted without consent.
Written Completion Commitment and Its Breach
On 16 March 2026, following continued non-performance and after an additional payment of INR 80,000/- to a colour vendor on 3 March 2026, Hardik Panchal gave a written commitment to complete all remaining work by 15 April 2026, a date tied to a planned Vastu Puja on 19 April 2026. This deadline passed without completion. Through April 2026 the complainant issued repeated reminders and a formal warning that continued inaction would result in the complainant staying at Panchal's office daily until work was completed. Promised actions, including stone work and a final handover, did not materialise as assured.
Breakdown of the Relationship
Between May and June 2026, Panchal repeatedly promised imminent handover (including a specific commitment on 16 May 2026 to deliver keys within a week) without follow-through, and largely stopped responding to numbered written reminders (Reminders 1 through 5, 18 to 29 May 2026). On 3 June 2026, a site inspection found no worker present for the preceding 15 days and documented extensive incomplete and defective items across the flat. The complainant recorded Panchal's reported remark that, having already received over 80% of payment, the client's suffering did not matter to him. On 15 June 2026, the complainant issued formal written notice detailing the payment-to-progress disparity, the elapsed time (over seven months beyond initial delay points), and the resulting financial and mental distress, and stated regret at having engaged him.
On 16 June 2026, for the first time, Panchal demanded a further INR 4,00,000/-, acknowledging he had agreed to design changes without discussing cost impact, and offered to finish within a week if paid. The complainant rejected this, noting major design elements had been finalised before work began, listed specific ongoing defects (incorrect laminate and stone work, misplaced lighting, unapproved hardware, a cracked bed base, unfinished sharp corners), and formally demanded return of the advance if he could not complete the work.
Daily follow-up through late June and into July 2026 continued to show missed appointments, no qualified tradespeople on site, and visible deterioration of previously completed work (laminate breaking, colour peeling, fittings cracking). On 1 July 2026, Panchal admitted in writing that work was stalled for want of further payment, and a consolidated payment receipt for INR 20,30,000/- was finally issued, more than a year after the first advance.
Formal Withdrawal of Services
On 4 July 2026, Hardik Panchal formally withdrew from the project via WhatsApp, citing financial constraints and lack of liquid funds, and declined to complete the remaining scope (curtains, sofa/dining set, balcony furnishings, wall fan and shower curtains), offering only to help source alternative vendors.
Post-Withdrawal Disputes
Following withdrawal, disputes continued over: return of all main-door keys (only one of four returned despite repeated requests); a detailed itemised list of pending and defective work sent on 9 July 2026; missing two-year warranty certificates for light fixtures; unauthorised substitution of hinge and channel brands; a shortfall of one paid-for stone slab never supplied; and a formal financial reconciliation showing INR 20,30,000/- (approximately 81%) paid against a project that had run more than 300 days beyond its originally promised 90 to 120 day timeline.
The complainant also obtained an assessment from an authorised Asian Paints representative indicating that the finish sold as "Deco/PU paint" was in fact ordinary oil-based satin paint, and an independent vendor estimate of approximately INR 10,00,000/- to rectify defects and complete pending work. The complainant put Panchal on notice of intended legal proceedings and separately noted an alleged cheque-dishonour conviction against him dated 3 July 2026.
On 13 July 2026, Panchal replied denying most quality complaints, agreeing only to proportionate deductions for pending items, conditioning further completion and warranty documentation on additional payment, and disputing the claimed loss figure and the cheque-dishonour allegations. Through July and into August 2026, repeated promises to replace a flat lock and deliver remaining kitchen and profile items went unfulfilled.
Current Status
As of the date of this document, Mercury Creators / Hardik Panchal has received approximately INR 20,30,000/- of the INR 25,00,001/- contract value (about 81%), formally withdrew from the project on 4 July 2026, and completed only approximately 60% of the agreed turnkey scope. The flat remains neither liveable nor handed over more than eighteen months after signing, well beyond every completion timeline promised, including the written 15 April 2026 commitment.
Reliefs likely to be sought: completion or cost of completion of pending work, compensation for defective work and required rectification (independently estimated at approximately INR 14,60,000/-), return of undelivered items or their value (including the short-supplied stone slab), delivery of missing warranty documentation, compensation for delay and mental/financial distress, and return of proportionate advance if work is not completed.
