1. The principal question which swirls round this case is, hether the OP/Petitioner, who is proceeded against exparte can set up defences in its memorandum of appeal? Shankar Rajaram Dhangar purchased seeds of watermelon from Bharat Krishi Vaibhav, Dondaicha, Opposite Party no. 2. Those seeds were manufactured by Opposite Party no. 1, Petitioner Awanti Seeds Private Limited. On 30.04.2007, the complainant had sown those seeds after taking necessary precautions and also cultivated them properly. However, the watermelon which were grown were small in size and they used to get cracked. The complainant could not get the proper expected yield. The complainant made a complaint before the District Forum wherein he claimed Rs. 5,60,000/- towards loss of watermelon crop, Rs. 900/- towards purchase of seeds, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and physical pain and Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint. The petitioner did not appear before the District Forum. He was proceeded against exparte. Surprisingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not pick up a conflict with this fact. He did not challenge the exparte proceedings anywhere. The order of exparte against him has attained finality. 2. Thereafter, appeal was filed before State Commission. Thereto the appellant/petitioner remained absent. Complainant was present and he was heard. The State Commission was pleased to pass the following order: rom the perusal of the record it could be seen that the consumer complaint was filed actually against the appellant company though its General Manager name is mentioned as opponent. It is a misdiscription and the complaint is in fact addressed to the company as opponent and therefore, it is the company which preferred this appeal. Said company remained absent during the entire trial of consumer complaint. They did not file any written version. Therefore, only on the point of law they can challenge the impugned order. No such law point is raised in the appeal. We find no merit in appeal and, holding accordingly, pass the following order. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that he was fully authorized to set up his evidence before the State Commission. 4. We are unable to subscribe to his views. Before first appellate authority, the appellant can not produce defence. He should have prayed to the State Commission to set aside the exparte order and give him opportunity to file the written statement. Now enough time has already elapsed. The complaint was registered as back as on 19.05.2007. It is not proper to remand the case at this stage. No such request was ever made by the counsel for the petitioner. We have also perused the judgment of District Forum. That does not suffer from any inherent defect. The order passed by the State Commission is flawless and therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.