JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The petitioner, who is doing the business of transporting petroleum products under the name and style of M/s. Betala Transport Organisation and who entered into a contract of insurance with the respondent insurance company, for which a carriers liability policy was issued for the period from 14.5.1990 to 13.5.1991, has by the present petition prayed for declaring a clause in such policy to the effect that the insurance company would be liable only if the fire or accident has arisen on account of negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants, ultra vires Section23 of the Contract Act and Section 55 of the Marine Insurance Act, with a further prayer to direct the respondent insurance company to satisfy the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,62,999 with interest. 2. The petitioner entered into a contract of insurance with the respondent insurance company, for which the Carriers Liability Policy No. 321107/000/00007/46/00016/91 had been issued effective from 14.5.1990 to 13.5.1991, whereby and whereunder the company agreed to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by fire and/or accident to the vehicle bearing Registration No. AMZ-5798, of which the petitioner is the registered owner, while such goods or merchandise are actually transported through the said vehicle. Such indemnification, however, was subject to the condition that the fire or accident has arisen on account of the negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants and the vehicle is damaged by such fire or explosion or accident and the claim in respect thereof is admitted under the motor comprehensive insurance policy covering the vehicle. Such indemnification, however, was subject to the condition that the fire or accident has arisen on account of the negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants and the vehicle is damaged by such fire or explosion or accident and the claim in respect thereof is admitted under the motor comprehensive insurance policy covering the vehicle. The relevant portion of such policy of insurance is reproduced below: Now this Policy witnesseth that during the currency of this Policy or any further period for which it may be in force, subject to the limits terms provisions exclusions exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed thereon the Company hereby agrees to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by fire, and/or accident to the vehicle registered under No. AMZ-5798 whilst such goods or merchandise are actually transported in the said vehicle provided that fire or accident has arisen on account of negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants and further provided that the vehicle is damaged by such fire or explosion or accident, and a claim in respect thereof is admitted under the motor comprehensive insurance policy covering the vehicle. The cover will commence with the leading of cargo on the vehicle and will be inforce until unloading of the cargo at the discharging point or expiry of 3 days after the first arrival of the vehicle at the destination town whichever may first occur: Provided that the liability of the company shall not exceed the sum of rupees one lakh in respect of any one accident or series of accidents arising out of any one event or occurrence nor the sum of rupees one lakh in respect of all claims arising during any one period of insurance but the company will, in addition, pay all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent in defending any claim made against the insured. 3. On 19.10.1990, i.e., during continuance of such policy the said vehicle bearing Registration No. AMZ-5798 met with an accident near Chowrnguri village, Bijni when it proceeded towards Guwahati from Bongaigaon loaded with 14000 litres of ATF (Petroleum. Products) of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., for which the petitioner lodged the claim before the respondent insurance company. 3. On 19.10.1990, i.e., during continuance of such policy the said vehicle bearing Registration No. AMZ-5798 met with an accident near Chowrnguri village, Bijni when it proceeded towards Guwahati from Bongaigaon loaded with 14000 litres of ATF (Petroleum. Products) of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., for which the petitioner lodged the claim before the respondent insurance company. Since the claim of the petitioner had not been settled, he approached the State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission (State Commission) at Guwahati complaining deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company, which proceeding was registered as C.P. Case No. 12/1996, claiming an amount of Rs.5,62,999, which includes the principal claim amount and the interest and the damages. In the said proceeding the respondent insurance company filed the written statement taking the stand that since the accident did not occur on account of the negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the actual damages caused, in view of the conditions in the Carriers Liability Policy issued. The State forum thereafter, on 7.4.2001 by following its earlier decision in Betala Transport Organisation v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1998) 4 GLT (CP) has dismissed the said proceeding, against which the petitioner, however, did not file appeal before the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition with the prayer as noticed above. 4. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned senior Counsel for the petitioner referring to the condition in the policy of insurance to the effect that the insurance company shall be liable only in the event of fire or accident that has arisen on account of negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants, has submitted that such conditions in the contract of insurance being unreasonable, unfair, irrational and contrary to Section 23 of the Contract Act as well as Section 55 of the Marine Insurance Act, the same is required to be struck down in exercise of the power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned senior Counsel the consideration or the object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law or the court regards it as immoral, or it opposed to the public policy and in the instant case such a condition in the contract of insurance being against the public policy, it has to be declared as invalid, in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 and, hence, the insurance company may be directed to settle the claim of the petitioner. Referring to Section 55 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 it has further been submitted by Mr. Sahewalla that the policy of insurance issued by the respondent insurance company being a contract of marine insurance, the respondent insurance company cannot put any condition in such policy, as has been done in the case in hand, contrary to Section 55 of the said Act, which provides that the insurance company shall not be liable only for any loss attributable to the willful misconduct of the assured, for any loss proximately caused by delay and for ordinary wear and tear, ordinary leakage and breakage, inherent vice or nature of the subject matter of the insured, or for any loss proximately caused by maritime perils as provided in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the said Act. It has been submitted by the learned senior Counsel that since the offending condition in such policy is contrary to the said provisions of law, such condition has to be declared as invalid and the insurance company cannot refuse to settle the claim of the petitioner by taking advantage of such an illegal clause in the contract of insurance. 6. Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in LIC of India and Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 482 and B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 647 . 7. Mr. 6. Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in LIC of India and Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 482 and B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 647 . 7. Mr. Dutta, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, has submitted that it is evident from the policy of insurance issued by the respondent insurance company that such policy was the Carriers Liability Policy by which the liability of the petitioner as carrier under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 was agreed to be indemnified and not for any other purposes. It has further been submitted that the petitioner knowing fully well such condition in the policy has entered into the contract and, therefore, cannot now turn around and challenge such condition as he is bound by such condition, more so when such condition is not contrary to the public policy or any legal provision. Mr. Dutta further submits that since the alleged offending condition in such policy is neither immoral nor opposed to public policy, the Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act has no application in the present case, so also the provision of Section 55 of the Marine Insurance Act, the policy of insurance being not a contract of marine insurance within the meaning of the said Act. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of Madras High Court in The Manager, Doors Transport (P.) Ltd. v. The Canara Bank and Anr. AIR 1992 Mad. 324 . 8. It appears from the contract of insurance entered into between the petitioner and the respondent insurance company that such policy was a carrier's liability policy. By the said policy the respondent insurance company agreed to indemnify the insured, i.e., the petitioner against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by fire and/or accident to the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, while such goods or merchandise are actually transported in the said vehicle. By the said policy the respondent insurance company agreed to indemnify the insured, i.e., the petitioner against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by fire and/or accident to the vehicle belonging to the petitioner, while such goods or merchandise are actually transported in the said vehicle. There is, however, a condition on such indemnification to the effect that such fire or accident has to be on account of the negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants, which condition according to the petitioner is irrational, unfair, unreasonable and against the public policy as well as contrary to the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act and Section 55 of the Marine Insurance Act. 9. Section 2 of the Carriers Act, 1865 defines "common carrier", as a person, other than the Government, engaged in the business of transporting property under multinodal transport document or of transporting for hire property from place to place, by land or inland navigation, for all persons indiscriminately. Section 2 also defines "person", which includes any association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Section 8 of the said Act provides that every common carrier shall be liable to the owner for loss of or damage to any property including container, pallet or similar article of transport used to consolidate goods delivered to such carrier to be carried, where such loss or damage has arisen from the criminal act of the carrier or any of his agents or servants and shall also be liable to the owner for loss or damage to any such property other than property to which the provisions of Section 3 apply and in respect of which the declaration required by that section has not been made, where such loss or damage has arisen from the negligence of the carrier or any of his agents or servants. 10. Under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 the circumstances under which the common carrier shall be liable to the owner of the goods have been stipulated. 10. Under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 the circumstances under which the common carrier shall be liable to the owner of the goods have been stipulated. If the loss or damage to the property of the owner arises from an act, not because of the criminal act of the carrier or criminal or negligent act of the carrier or any of his agents or servants, it would not make the common carrier liable under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, which view has also been taken by the Madras High Court in The Manager, Doars Transport (P.) Ltd. (supra). 11. It appears from the policy of insurance issued by the respondent insurance company that such policy, i.e., Carriers Liability Policy undertakes to indemnify the insured against his legal liability under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865 as it specifically provides that the insurance company shall be liable only if the fire or accident has arisen on account of negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants, for which the carrier is liable under Section 8 of the Carriers Act, 1865. The policy having been issued covering the risk of the petitioner as the common carrier under Section8 of the Carriers Act, it cannot be said that the alleged offending condition in such contract is irrational, unfair, unreasonable or unjust or contrary to the public policy. It also cannot be said that such a condition in the contract is unlawful being forbidden by law or immoral or opposed to public policy within the meaning of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. 12. There is no dispute to the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex-Court in LIC of India and Anr. (supra) and B.V. Nagaraju (supra). If a condition in the policy is unjust, unreasonable, unfair, irrational and the contract is unconscionable and against the public policy, it is open to judicial review and the court can declare any such condition in the policy to be invalid. However, in the present case, as noticed above, the policy of insurance was issued by the respondent insurance company covering the legal liabilities of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Carriers Act. However, in the present case, as noticed above, the policy of insurance was issued by the respondent insurance company covering the legal liabilities of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Carriers Act. The petitioner in the writ petition has admitted that he carries on the business of carrying or transportation of goods from one place to another by means of that vehicle bearing Registration No. AMZ-5798, carrying the petroleum products of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., for which he is paid. The petitioner, therefore, conies within the definition of "common carrier" of the Carriers Act. 13. The contention of the petitioner that the alleged offending condition in the contract of insurance is invalid being contrary to the provisions of Section 55 of the Marine Insurance Act cannot be accepted on the ground that the contract of insurance was not a "contract of marine insurance" within the meaning of Section 2(a) and Section 3 of the Marine Insurance Act. Section 2(a) defines the "contract of marine insurance" as a contract of marine insurance as defined by Section 3. Section 3of the said Act provides that a contract of marine insurance is an agreement whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in the manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses, that is to say, the losses incidental to marine adventure. Section 2(d) defines "marine adventure", which includes any adventure where- (i) any insurable property is exposed to maritime perils; (ii) the earnings or acquisition of any freight, passage money, commission, profit or other pecuniary benefit, or the security for any advances, loans, or disbursements is endangered by the exposure of insurable property to maritime perils; (iii) any liability to a third party may be incurred by the owner of or other person interested in or responsible for, insurable property by reason of maritime perils. Section 2(e) of the said Act defines the "maritime perils" as the perils consequent on, or incidental to, the navigation of the sea, that is to say, perils of the sea, fire, war perils, pirates, rovers, thieves, captures, seizures, restraints and detainments of princes and peoples, jettisons, barratry and any other perils which are either of the like kind or may be designated by the policy. The present policy of insurance was in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AMZ-5798 (Oil Tanker) and the claim of the petitioner has arisen out of an accident occurred while such vehicle was plying from Bongaigaon towards Guwahati. Such policy was not issued for indemnification against marine losses, i.e., to say the losses incidental to marine adventure or in respect of any insurable property exposed to maritime perils, within the meaning of Marine Insurance Act and, hence, Section 55 of the said Act has no application in the case in hand. 14. In view of the above, the relief claimed by the present petitioner in the present petition cannot be granted and, hence, the petition is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.