Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1, on admission. Registry has reported delay of 162 days in preferring revision petition beyond prescribed period of limitation for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioners and reasons assigned therein are that as petitioner No. 1 happens to be Secretary of Baptist Educational Service and also Secretary of Greater Visakhapatnam Leprosy Treatment and Health Education Scheme, he was engaged in programme of these two Institutions, leaving no time to meet their counsel. Though petitioner states that copy of impugned order was dispatched to them only on 08.02.2008, Registry has reported date of receipt of order by petitioner on 18.01.2008. Neither certified copy of impugned order was put on record nor Xerox copy thereof was available to buttress the contentions raised. Hence, there being delay of 162 days in filing revision petition for which no good reasons were assigned in application seeking condonation of delay, revision petition, on this count alone deserves dismissal. However, we have gone into merits of case also. Factual backgrounds succinctly put are that petitioners approached respondent No. 2 – ACE Travels to arrange tickets with Air France for their journey to and from Visakhapatnam to Houstan and back from Houstan to Visakhapatnam. Air tickets for their journey were accordingly arranged by M/s. Laxmi Tour & Travels, respondent No. 3, authorized agent of Air France – respondent No. 1, on payment of full value of air ticket. The couple performed their journey as scheduled from Visakhapatnam. However, during retreat, when they reached Paris Airport on 07.01.2002 to board connecting flight of respondent No. 1, connecting flight was not available. Respondent No. 1 arranged their accommodation in Hotel IBIS, close to Airport for their night stay, as connecting flight was available only on 08.01.2002. Following day when petitioners were to leave their hotel and were waiting in the lounge, an unidentified person relieved petitioner No. 2 of her handbag which contained valuable documents including social security cards, driving licence, collection of currency notes, coins of several countries, large collection of photos of family members and friends, several gift articles, air tickets and also work book maintained by petitioner No. 1 with regard to his research work. A police case was registered. Since they lost even air tickets, it was only after much persuasion that they could get entry in flight to come over to Mumbai, India. However, this was not the last chapter in their agony, as even at Mumbai, the Immigration authorities of Government of India at Mumbai Airport did not permit their entry in the country without a valid Indian Passport and Visa. After they were detained at the Mumbai Airport for some time, they could be permitted for their entry in the country only after showing proof of police case registered by them in France. Now petitioners throw all blames on respondents for entire incident that followed due to callous, negligent and deficiency in service of respondents, particularly that of respondent No. 1 who failed to provide connected flight from Paris to Mumbai. Consumer complaint filed by petitioners was resisted by respondents on various grounds disowning their liability to make good imaginary loss suffered by petitioners. Air France, resisting complaint, took recourse to clause in the ‘Ticket Jacket’ which stipulates that in case of necessity, flight schedules are subject to changes without notice and Carrier would assume no responsibility for the reasons which are beyond their control. As flight from Houstan to Paris was delayed, connecting flight from Paris to Mumbai could not be arranged, and for any such event which took place in the present case on account of external factors, respondent No. 1 would not be held liable. District Forum, however, held Air France – respondent No. 1, answerable for miseries suffered by petitioners and awarded compensation of Rs. 85,000/- for negligence in not providing security. Air France was also made liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- for extra amount collected from petitioners along-with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. No relief was, however, granted against rest respondents. In appeal that was preferred by aggrieved Air France – respondent No. 1, finding of District Forum was reversed fastening no liability against respondent No. 1 for the events that followed pursuant to re-scheduling of flight and loss of belongings of petitioners during their stay in hotel. As was urged before State Commission, it is reiterated before us by learned counsel for respondent that remoteness and causation of factual situation fails to provide a chain attributing failure on part of respondent No. 1, in so far as it fails to consider the doctrine of ‘Novus Actus Intervenies’, there being no evidence suggesting events that followed, to be direct result of negligence of respondent No. 1. Air France were admittedly no ‘pattriae guardian’ of passengers particularly when they were not on air-craft or in the vicinity of air port. After petitioners had left hotel, no duty of care is owned by airlines to a passenger who negligently fails to safeguard one’s own belongings, and so respondent No. 1 was not obliged to provide personal security, or were otherwise responsible for safety and security of passengers, leaving airport. Admittedly, petitioners have not a case about any inconvenience faced by them during their stay in hotel. Party complained of, can be held liable only on acceptable evidence that injury or loss was direct fall out of negligence and if negligence or deficiency is not attributable to party complained of, no compensation could be awarded for imaginary loss or indirect losses. It is well acknowledged crystallized by catena of decisions that mere loss or injury without negligence was not contemplated by section 14(1)(d) of CP Act, 1986, and we may usefully refer to judgment of National Commission in matter of R.R. Gopal alias R. Rajagopal Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – 1997 (5) CTJ 124 NCDRC and case of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation, Chandigarh Vs. Kirti P. Doshi – 1997 (5) CTJ 186 NCDRC. Contentions raised on behalf of petitioner that it was only for delay in flight that petitioners were forced to stay in hotel provided by respondent No. 1 which followed the unfortunate incident of theft, does not impress us. Finding of District Forum for failure on part of respondent No. 1 to provide security to petitioners, after they left hotel was patently erroneous, no such obligation being cast on them for security of passengers. Admitted facts are that petitioners were not even in the air-craft or in the vicinity of airport when they lost their valuables. Respondent No. 1, however, would be under an obligation to cover the risk under Rule 17 of Schedule-II of the Carriage by Air Act, when a passenger has boarded aircraft or is in the course of embarking or disembarking. It is admitted that petitioners availed flight of respondent No. 1 from Paris to Mumbai on the following day, even when they had lost ticket. That apart, for re-scheduling of flight, housing too was provided to them by Air France. As noticed, remoteness of cause would not render respondent No. 1 answerable for any loss or injury suffered, particularly, when no negligence was attributable to them. State Commission has nicely taken notice of all these events, while dismissing complaint, and, we find no good reason to disturb the finding recorded therein. Revision petition on merit also, bears no merit and is resultantly dismissed with no order as to cost.