—JUDGEMENT- — Shri Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay—the respondent-herein-had purchased a ticket for travel from Lucknow to Delhi by an Indian Airlines flight which was scheduled to start from Lucknow on 26-10-1988 at 2 P.M. That flight, however, got delayed and could only take off from Lucknow only at 6.50 P.M. the reason being that the aircraft which was to come from Delhi to Lucknow and operate the return Plight could leave Delhi only at 5.15 P.M. on that day. The complainants wife Smt. Asha Upadhyay was also to travel to Delhi alongwiih him on that flight and he had purchased a ticket for her also. The complainants case is that because of the delay in the operation of the flight in question and the alleged failure on the part of the Indian Airlines staff at Lucknow Airport to provide necessary facilities such as lunch, tea etc. to thewaiting passengers of the delayed flight, Smt. Asha Upadhyay developed weakness and became indisposed, it is further alleged by the complainant that inspite of his having brought the fact of the indisposition of his wife to the notice of the Airlines staff at Lucknow Airport, they did not make any arrangement for providing her with a bednor was any emergency medical aid arranged for her. The complainant and his wife travelled to Delhi by the delayed flight which landed in Delhi at about 7.50 p.m. Smt. Asha Upadhyay expired at Delhi on the next day. The complainant thereafter preferred the complaint against the Indian Airlines (appellant-herein) before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party as compensation for the irreparable loss suffered by him in consequence of the death of his wife. He also claimed a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of expenses for prosecuting the complaint-petition. 2. The complainants claim for compensation was based on the allegation that the delay in operation of the flight Lucknow to Delhi on October 26, 1988 and the alleged failure on the part of the Indian Airlines staff at Lucknow to provide to her proper facilities such as food and drinks and their omission to make available to her medical assistance were the factors responsible for her death on the next day. 3. 3. After Careful consideration of the facts as disclosed in the pleadings filed by both sides as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the State Commission found that the complainants allegation that drinking water, tea, coffee, eatables etc, were not provided to the passengers during the period when they had to wait at Lucknow Airport on account of the delay in operation of the flight could not be accepted as true. After a detailed discussion of evidence pertaining to the matter, the State Commission also found that the allegation of the complainant that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party in making available medical facilities to Smt. Asha Upadhyay was also unfounded. In the opinion of the State Commission, it was significant that no efforts whatever were made by the complainant to seek or provide medical facilities for Smt. Upadhyay while they were at Lucknow Airport in spite of the fact that there were facilities such as the Airlines Passenger Coach and Taxis were available for taking her to Lucknow City for consulting any of the doctors there. Another finding recorded by the State Commission is that Puring the course of the flight from Lucknow to Delhi also there had been no negligence on the part of the cabin staff of the Indian Airlines and that the complainant himself had been negligent in taking necessary steps for treating the condition of Smt. Asha Upadhyay even after reaching Delhi. In view of the aforesaid findings the State Commission held that the opposite party before it was not liable for payment of any compensation for the unfortunate death of Smt. Asha Upadhyay on October 27, 1988 and that the complaint had only to be rejected. 4. After having recorded the aforesaid categorical findings, the State Commission, surprisingly proceeded to state as follows in the concluding part of its Order:— "(e) It is indisputable that the flight in question which was scheduled to start at 14.00 hrs. (at 200 P.M.) from Lucknow to Delhi started at 18.50 (at 6.50 P.M.) on 26-10-1988 and in this way there was a delay of 4 hours and 30 minutes. (at 200 P.M.) from Lucknow to Delhi started at 18.50 (at 6.50 P.M.) on 26-10-1988 and in this way there was a delay of 4 hours and 30 minutes. The passengers are in no way responsible for this delay and this delay is due to the fault in the internal arrangement of the institution of the opponent as a consequence of which the passengers travelling by this flight had to stay at the aerodrome for such a long time and it resulted in the loss of their time and they were put to inconvenience. Therefore for the aforesaid reason the State Commission finds that the opponent is not responsible for compensation for the unfortunate death of Smt. Asha Upadhyay on 27-10-1988 and this complaint is rejected. But a sum of Rupees two hundred be paid by the opponent to (Shri Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay) for the loss of time as a result of 4 hours and 50 minutes delay in starting the flight in question from Lucknow." 5. Aggrieved by the said direction for payment of Rs. 200/- to the complainant "for the loss of time as a result of 4 hours and 50 minutes delay in starting the flight in question from Lucknow", the Indian Airlines has come up before us with this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant opened his submissions by pointing out that in the complaint filed by the respondent before the State Commission he had not put forward any claim at all for compensation on the ground of loss of time or inconvenience caused on account of the delay in operation of the flight. The Counsel submitted that it is clearly disclosed by the evidence as set out in the State Commissions Order that as early as at 9.00 A.M. on October 26, 1988 information had been received by the Indian Airlines authorities at Lucknow Airport that the flight from Delhi to Lucknow would leave Delhi only at 1530 Hrs, and that immediately on receipt of the said information, the flight from Lucknow was rescheduled for 5.40 P.M. and the said fact was immediately notified on the flight information board displayed in the airport and announcements were also made on the public address system in the Airport giving intimation about the revised flight schedule. Thereafter at 2.40 P.M. a further message was received that the flight would depart from Delhi only at 1715 Hrs. Thereafter at 2.40 P.M. a further message was received that the flight would depart from Delhi only at 1715 Hrs. and there upon prompt action was taken by the Airport authorities at Lucknow to notify on the flight information board and announce through the public address system that the departure time of the said flight from Lucknow had been refixed as 1850 Hrs. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts brought out in the evidence as also the further fact noted by the State Commission that facilities had been provided by the Indian Airlines to take the passengers to Lucknow by their Coach so that they could, if they so chose to do, go to the city and return to the Airport in time for the re-scheduled flight, there was absolutely no justification for awarding any amount by way of compensation for loss of time. Finally, it was urged that award of compensation would be justified under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) only if there is legal proof that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party and that loss or injury has suffered by the consumer due to such negligence. Counsel submitted that there is absolutely no allegation in the complaint charging the opposite party with negligence in the matter of causing the delay or loss of time and that the State Commission has also not recorded any finding that there was negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines. On the basis of these submissions, the Counsel for the appellant contended that the State Commission has acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in awarding the sum of Rs.200/-as compensation for "loss of time and inconvenience" caused to the complainant. 8. We find that there is force in the points urged by the Counsel for the appellant- The claim for compensation put forward by the complainant before the State Commission in his complaint was based solely on the ground that his wifes death had occurred as a result of the failure on the part of the Indian Airlines staff at Lucknow Airport to extend to her the requisite facilities for having food, drinks, tea, coffee etc. and also the facility of a bed and emegency medical aid during the period of the delay that occurred in the flight from Lucknow upto Delhi. and also the facility of a bed and emegency medical aid during the period of the delay that occurred in the flight from Lucknow upto Delhi. It was only on the strenght of the aforesaid allegation that the complainant had claimed to recover a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party. There was also a further claim for the award of Rs. 10,000/-by way of expenses of conducting the case before the State Commission. 9. The State (Commission after careful consideration of the evidence adduced in the case has recorded categorical findings to the effect that the opposite party was not responsible for the illness of Smt. Asha Upadhyay, and that there was no negligence or failure on the part of the opposite party to provide refreshment etc. to the waiting passengers. It has also been found that far from there being any negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines staff in the matter of providing medical assistance to the complainants wife, it was complainant himself who had been indifferent towards the indisposition of Smt. Asha Upadhyay, both during the period while she was at the Lucknow Airport and even after her reaching Delhi. 10. In the light of it having reached the aforementioned conclusions, the proper course to be adopted by the State Commission was only to reject the complaint as devoid of merit. Unfortunately, while stating that it was rejecting the complaint, the State Commission has proceeded to direct the appellant to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 200/- on the ground that passengers travelling by the delayed flight would have been put to inconvenience and loss of their time. When there was not even a plea taken in the complaint that any loss or inconvenience had been caused to the complainant due to the negligence of the Indian Airlines staff and there was no evidence whatever to show that the delae was occasioned by any negligence on the part of the opposite party (appellanty herein), there was no justification ot all in law for the State Commission to direct payment of any amount to the complainant for "loss of time and incon-vence". From the Facts disclosed by the evidence, it is clear that the Indian Airlines authorities had made known to the public as early as at 9 A.M. that the flight which was scheduled to depart at 2 P.M. would be leaving Lucknow that day only at 5.40 PM. Again at 2.40 PM. the public were informed through the public address system as well as on the fight information Board that the flight in question would depart from Lucknow only at 6.50 P.M. It has also come in the evidence that passengers who had arrived at the Airport by about noon were provided with transport facilities for going to Lucknow City and for coming back to the Airport in time for the re-scheduled flight. Thus, it is clear that every possible action was taken by the Airlines Staff at Lucknow to aviod weste of time or inconvenience to the passengers. There is absolutely no material on the record to show that the delay in operating the flight was caused on account of any negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines. 11. Flights may get delayed due to various causes such as poor visibility in the airfield, bad weather, bird hits, tyre burst while landing or take off, sudden strike by any crucial section of Airlines staff etc. all of which may be factors beyond the control of the Airlines. In such cases the delay cannot ordinarily be attributed to negligence on the part of the Airlines. There may however be other instances where the delay in operating a fight might have been caused by reason of neglience on the part of the Airline staff. 12. It is not the law that mere fact that a flight is operated late will ipso facto tender the Airline liable for payment of compensation to the passengers. Section 5 (e) of Non-International Carriage (Passage and Baggage) Regulations 1980 framed in accordance with the powers conferred by clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of Air Corporations Amendment Act, 1971 inter alia, lays down that the Corporation is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in the Carriage by Air of passengers or baggage. This condition forms an essential part of the contract of Carriage of Indian Airlines with its passengers, as it is printed on the jacket of the tickets, issued to them. This condition forms an essential part of the contract of Carriage of Indian Airlines with its passengers, as it is printed on the jacket of the tickets, issued to them. To what extent this provision will operate to defeat a legitimate claim for damages in a case where it is proved by adequate evidence that delay in carriage of passengers was occasioned by reason of some gross negligence on the part of concerned Airline is a matter which we are not called upon to examine in the present case, because, as already stated, there is neither any pleading of negligence much less proof of the same in the case now before us. 13. The Forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act are invested with jurisdiction under Section 14 (d) of the Act to award compensation to the consumers only for any loss or injury suffered by the consumers "due to the negligence of the opposite party". Proof that there was negligence and that it had caused the particular loss or injury is a sine qua non for the award of compensation under this provision. Where there is no such proof compensation cannot legally be awarded under Section 14(d) of the Act. 14. In as much as there is no finding by the State Commission that the loss of time or inconvenience to the complainant had been caused on account of negligence on the part of the Indian Airlines, the direction made in the impugned order for payment of Rs. 200/- to the complainant is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. 15. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the direction contained in the Order of the State Commission for payment by the appellant of a sum of Rs. 200/- to the complainant as compensation for "the loss of time and inconvenience" that had resulted from the delay in starting the fight in question from Lucknow. There will be no direction regarding costs.