JUDGMENT : As per S.K. Kulshrestha, J. (President) : - First Appeal No. 460/2006 has been filed against the order dated 30-1-2006 of the District Forum, Hoshangabad in Case No. 10/2000. First Appeal No. 625/2006 has been filed against the order of even date passed in Case No. 62/1999 by the District Forum, Hoshangabad and so also First Appeal No. 626/2006 against the order of even date passed in Case No. 61/1999 by the District Forum, Hoshangabad. 2. In First Appeal No. 460/2006, the matter relates to marine policy issued by the appellant bearing No. 321002/21/96/44/00021, dated 29-10-1996 for the period 29-10-1996 to 28-10-1997. Likewise in First Appeal No. 625/2006 the policy has been issued by the appellant-Insurance Company being No. 214/239 for the period 6-12-1996 to 5-12-1997. In First Appeal No. 626/2006 the policy number is 214/239 for the period 6-12-1996 to 5-12-1997. Rest of the contents in each policy are different, therefore, the facts have been taken from First Appeal No. 460/2006 for convenience unless otherwise specified. 3. In all the above cases, a marine policy in each, was issued by Insurance Company (appellant) for insuring the consignments of the respondent. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that railway had not given any shortage certificate and the bags were found intact and the loss was due to moisture and use of second hand gunny bags. As per the complaint, the complainant claimed for 12.610 metric ton goods of the value Rs. 1,16,643/-, therefore, the claimant claimed this amount along with 18% interest and cost of the complaint. It was alleged that the complainant - Sawariya Agro Oils Ltd., manufactures the De Oiled Cake. The complainant firm had obtained a marine policy from the appellant-Insurance Company. It had sent 21515 bags of De Oiled Cake from Itarsi through invoice No. 1146 under Railway Receipt No. 057747 to 057749 to Badi Bunder, Mumbai. The goods sent by railways had the invoice value of Rs. 1,36,16,000/- which was required to be sent to its destination by 5-12-1996. But on reaching Badi Bunder the De Oiled Cake was found 12.610 metric ton short and, therefore, the insured claimed Rs. 1,16,643/- being the value of the short material. The goods sent by railways had the invoice value of Rs. 1,36,16,000/- which was required to be sent to its destination by 5-12-1996. But on reaching Badi Bunder the De Oiled Cake was found 12.610 metric ton short and, therefore, the insured claimed Rs. 1,16,643/- being the value of the short material. It was also pleaded that in the marine policy and at the time of its issue, the Insurance Company knew full well that short certificate is not issued by the railways but, despite that the claim was not settled in favour of the claimants. The complainant sent a notice to the Insurance Company clarifying all facts but, still it failed to move the Insurance Company. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company while admitting the marine insurance and the fact that it covered Rs. 5 crores for perils, took a preliminary objection that since the case gave rise to complicated questions which could be resolved only by a Civil Court on the basis of evidence, the Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was also stated that the complainant did not adhere to the conditions of the policy. It did not obtain any shortage certificate from the Railway Administration. The shortage in weight was also on account of evaporation of moisture. The insured did not produce the shortage certificate according to the conditions of the policy with the result the complainant divested itself from making any claim under the policy. The appellant, therefore, prayed that the claim be dismissed. While the first argument of the learned Counsel is that the respondent has failed to produce the shortage certificate during the settlement of claims and as the statutory period had now expired, the appellant had been deprived from serving legal notice to the Railway Administration for filing suit for recovery of damages on the basis of letter of subrogation. The District Forum has considered this objection in Para 5 of its order stating that the Railway Administration does not furnish any shortage certificate and, therefore, that cannot be a ground for repudiation. Reference has been made to Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The notice required under the Carriers Act is not applicable in the case of railways as railways are governed by its own statute. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Reference has been made to Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The notice required under the Carriers Act is not applicable in the case of railways as railways are governed by its own statute. Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd., II (2007) CPJ 35 (SC). Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:- "4. The State Commission, allowed the complaint by order dated 14-6-2004. It held that the failure of appellant to deliver the consignment amounted to deficiency of service. The State Commission also held that having lost the consignment and failed to deliver the same, the appellant could not put forth non-payment of freight, as a ground to avoid liability. The State Commission noted that the only question that arose for its consideration, on the contentions urged was whether there was deficiency of service or not. The State Commission did not go into the other two questions relating to limitation and want of notice under Section 10 apparently as the said contentions were not specifically urged at the time of arguments. The State Commission directed the appellant to pay the value of consignment (Rs. 5,83,440/-) less the freight charges, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of booking, and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 5. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 14-6-2004 of the State Commission, was dismissed by the National Commission by a brief order dated 11-8-2004. It found no substance in the appeal, as hiring (for transportation of the goods) was covered by CP Act, and the appellant as carrier, did not deliver the consignment. In this appeal against the order of the National Commission, the appellant reiterated its contentions and also made a grievance that the State Commission and National Commission had failed to consider its contentions relating to maintainability and limitation, in spite of those contentions being specifically raised. On the contentions urged, the following three points arise for our consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the complaint was barred by the provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 ? (ii) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? (iii) Whether there was no contract for service, as the respondent had refused to pay the freight charges ? (ii) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ? (iii) Whether there was no contract for service, as the respondent had refused to pay the freight charges ? Re: Point No. (i): 6. Section 10 of the Act provides that no suit (or complaint) could be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of goods, unless a notice in writing, of the loss, had been given to the carrier before the institution, but within six months of the time when the plaintiff (or complainant) came to know about the loss. The appellant contends that the respondent can be said to have become aware of the loss of the consignment on 8-8-1988 (when it demanded delivery), but issued the legal notice demanding the value of consignment only on 27-10-2000 long after the expiry of six months from the date of knowledge. It further contended that even the notice dated 27-10-2000 did not purport to be one under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Associated Roadways, II (2007) CPJ 1 (SC), to contend that the complaint is barred without a notice under Section 10 of the Act. 5. In the above case also there is no discussion that in the case of railway a short certificate is necessary. It is also stated by the appellant that shortage was on account of the fact that used gunny bags were used in keeping the goods for transit and the stitches were also not upto the standard. The Insurance Company, therefore, contends that for the own fault of the insured, the Insurance Company could not be held liable. There is no evidence with regard to the used gunny bags being reused. No physical verification report has been placed on record to show whether the bags had become worthless and should not have been used for packing the material. Reference has also been made to MA. Paam Eatables Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 1986-2005 CONSUMER 8897 (NS). In that case, the National Commission was dealing with the case of unsuitable packaging materials. Though in the present case, it is alleged that old gunny bags have been used but it has not been shown that material was unsuitable for packing of the goods. Paam Eatables Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 1986-2005 CONSUMER 8897 (NS). In that case, the National Commission was dealing with the case of unsuitable packaging materials. Though in the present case, it is alleged that old gunny bags have been used but it has not been shown that material was unsuitable for packing of the goods. Thus, the ground that on account of inferior packing material, the claimant could not have claimed the compensation is illusory. In Exh. D-11, the letter of repudiation, it is stated that weight lost, on account of moisture which is not covered by the policy and since 21515 bags were sent and the same number was received, there is no question of any shortage or loss to the insured. For this reasons, the file was closed. We have already adverted to the claim on account of shortage. We may reiterate that as per the claimant the shortage certificate was not required and as we have pointed out above, there was no provision and nothing has been brought on record to show that such a provision existed. 6. Attention has also been invited to a judgment of the National Commission in Noble Grain India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. new India Assurance Co. Ltd., I (2008) CPJ 350 (NC), in which it has been held that even if there was breach of the policy condition, the payment could be made on the basis of 75% claim as non-standard claim. In this case the repudiation of claim was after the accident of an oil tanker which kept on leaking for 34 hours and reasonable care was not taken to save the oil. In the case in hand there is no allegation that the insured did not take proper care of the goods at the destination upto port. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the grounds on which the appellant deprived the respondent of its legitimate due do not exist and the Insurance Company has borrowed more from its imagination than the facts. Notice was also issued of which receipts are P-14 and P-15. This shows that the Insurance Company was duly apprised about the shortage of goods at destination and at no point of time the Insurance Company asked the insured to get a shortage certificate from the railways. Notice was also issued of which receipts are P-14 and P-15. This shows that the Insurance Company was duly apprised about the shortage of goods at destination and at no point of time the Insurance Company asked the insured to get a shortage certificate from the railways. The Insurance Company cannot abdicate its function of guiding parties that how the claim is to be made and not keep the information to itself till party commits an error. However, in the present case, there is no error on the part of the complainant. Both parties got the goods surveyed and surveyor's report was produced. However, the shortage certificate, which the appellant demanded was not available in view of Sections 74, 75, 79, 81 and 82 of the Railways Act, 1989. Even otherwise it has not been shown that in the absence of shortage certificate, the complainant could not have proved its case of shortage. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no life in these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed.