Y. Krishan ( 1 ) THIS is anappeal against the Order dated 3rd of July, 1991 passed ex-parte against the Appellant by the State Commission of Maharashtra in Complaint No. 110 of 1990. At the outset, we may notice the reasons which made the State Commission to proceed ex-parte against the Appellant herein; "a notice u/s. 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act was issued to the opposite party on 18. 1. 1991. The opposite party instructed Ramesh Makhija and Co. , Advocates, Solicitors and Notary. On 6. 2. 1991, Ramesh Makhija and Co. addressed a letter to this Commission informing that the Citi Bank are their client and that necessary instructions are being obtained in the matter. No written version was filed by the opposite party in response to the notice from this Commission within a period of 30 days. The notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party by registered post for the hearing fixed on 1. 3. 1991. The opposite party received said notice on 26. 2. 1991 and the postal acknowledgment is placed on record. But despite the notice, the opposite party remained absent on 1. 3. 1991. The case was, therefore, posted on 16. 4. 1991. A fresh notice was again issued but the opposite party remained absent on 16. 4. 1991. The case was again adjourned and posted on 20. 4. 1991 but no appearance was made on behalf of the opposite party. The complaint was again posted on 26. 4. 1991 with due notice to the opposite party. Still no appearance was made by the opposite party. Finally, the complaint was posted today for final hearing, The notice by registered post was sent to both the parties but the opposite party did not appear before this Commission for final hearing. We, therefore, proceed to decide this complaint ex-parte against the opposite party. Still no appearance was made by the opposite party. Finally, the complaint was posted today for final hearing, The notice by registered post was sent to both the parties but the opposite party did not appear before this Commission for final hearing. We, therefore, proceed to decide this complaint ex-parte against the opposite party. " ( 2 ) IN the appeal memorandum, the appellant has explained that their written version by way of rejoinder to the complaint was sent by registered post by them on the 11th of March, 1991 and the same was delivered in the office of the State Commission on the 14th March, 1991, but apparently his rejoinder was not placed before the State Commission with the result that the State Commission held that no written version had been filed by the appellant-opposite party, in response to the notice from the Commission within the period of 30 days. This, however, is not a fatal flaw in the Order of the State Commission inasmuch as the written version was required to be filed within 30 days of the service of notice dated 18th January, 1991 issued by the State Commission. There were other hearings fixed for 16th of April. 1991, 20th of April, 1991,26th of April, 1991 and finally on 3rd of July, 1991. The appellant- opposite party remained absent on these dates of hearing. ( 3 ) THE appeal before this Commission is also out of time. The Order of 3rd July, 1991 of the State Commission, according. to the appellant, was received by them on or about 2nd of August, 1991. The appeal was filed on 18th September, 1991. There is appellant s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Thedelay has been sought to be explained by stating that the Order of the State Commission appealed against, though received by the Bank on 2nd of August. 1991, it was received in the concerned department of the Bank only in the third week of August, 1991. Further, the concerned officer of that department happened to be on leave. So it was only after 4th of September, 1991 that the papers were sent to the Bank s Attorney for drafting and filing the necessary appeal. 1991, it was received in the concerned department of the Bank only in the third week of August, 1991. Further, the concerned officer of that department happened to be on leave. So it was only after 4th of September, 1991 that the papers were sent to the Bank s Attorney for drafting and filing the necessary appeal. On the face of it, the reasons given for delay in submission of the appeal are entirely unacceptable and this Commission finds no justification for condoning delay in filing the appeal. ( 4 ) THE appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. We make no order as to costs.