Aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. A/09/730, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The petitioner remained unrepresented on record after receipt of notice on complaint and therefore, it was proceeded exparte and an exparte order came to be passed. The order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal on the ground that notice on the complaint was not served on the petitioner. The State Commission has dealt with that aspect in detail by making following observations:- his complaint was decided ex-parte and after receipt of ex-parte order sent by the respondent, appellant has filed this appeal belatedly. But delay has been condoned and hence we are disposing of this appeal on merits. We are finding that despite service of notice, which has been clearly proved from the certified copy produced before us by the respondent, appellant remained absent and, therefore, there was no option for the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but to proceed ex-parte against appellant, who was original opponent and ex-parte award came to be passed. Said order cannot be challenged on any ground since we are satisfied with the appellant herein was duly served with the notice issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It was properly addressed and it was having acknowledgement receipt duly received by the appellant company. There is also stamp of the appellant company of Nasik Office. In the circumstances, we are finding no substance in the appeal. Hence the following order:- Appeal stands dismissed. 2. In view of the above observations and finding of the State Commission, we are not prepared to believe the petitioner when he says that it had not received the notice on complaint and, therefore, have no opportunity to defend the complaint. 3. Counsel further submits that the compensation awarded is excessive. We also do not agree with the said contention. We see no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the State Commission, which calls for any interference of this Commission. Dismissed.