JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:---This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Kolhapur dated 26th August, 1992 passed in Complaint No. 83 of 1992. A complaint was made by Ashok Ghewade, alleging inferior construction by the builder. It is further alleged that there has been leakage in the construction and therefore, he is required to carry our repairs work. It is also alleged that Rs. 15,200/- has been collected extra from the complainant by the opposite parties. The District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complainant to carry out the repairs and also ordered the opposite party Nos. 1 2 to make refund of Rs. 15,200/- towards excess collection of price of the flat. It is found from the memo of appeal that the Appellant No. 1 is the main owner and appellant No. 2 is a developer of the site. It is contended by the appellants that the flat in question was allotted to the Government under a scheme formulated under section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulation) Act in the year 1988. It is an admitted fact that complainant was to be in possession of the flat on 2-8-1989. The present complaint has been filed in the month of May, 1992 i.e. after a period of 33 months after its occupation by the complainant. A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite party that there was no contractual relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties and therefore, the complaint was liable to be rejected. Despite these apparent facts, the impugned order came to be passed by the District Forum. In our view the impugned order is patently wrong in as much as firstly there was no privity of contract between the parties and secondly the claim of complainant as regards the repairs can not be attributed to the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that the cracks developed in the building after the use of complainant for a period of 33 months. It is therefore, difficult to accept the contentions of the complainant that the cracks were as a result of defective construction, in absence of convincing evidence on record. Under these circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned order in absence of material on record. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. Appeal allowed.