Carrier liability and subrogated insurer rights survive unless exemption and no-recourse wording clearly cover negligence-based loss.

A common carrier cannot rely on a broadly worded contractual exemption to escape liability for loss caused by negligence or criminal acts unless the clause clearly and specifically displaces the statutory position under the Carriers Act, 1865; on the facts, Clause 10 was construed as part of the carriage arrangement and did not exclude such liability, so the carriers remained liable. A subrogated insurer may enforce the assured's rights against the carrier where the policy wording does not clearly waive recourse for uncompensated loss; the phrase "warranted no recourse against carriers" was not treated as a general abandonment of rights beyond the valid exemption, so the subrogation claim was not barred. The decree dismissing the suit therefore could not stand, subject to further enquiry on damages.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual clause relied upon by the carriers exempted them from liability for loss caused by negligence or criminal acts; (ii) whether the insurance company, claiming by subrogation, was barred by the policy stipulation that there should be no recourse against carriers.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual clause relied upon by the carriers exempted them from liability for loss caused by negligence or criminal acts.

Analysis: The liability of a common carrier under the Carriers Act, 1865 remains subject to loss caused by negligence or criminal acts, and any exemption clause must be construed in the light of that statutory position. The agreement of 1906 was treated as part of the carriage arrangement and not as an independent indemnity; on its true construction, Clause 10 did not extend to losses arising from negligence or criminal acts, despite its wide language. The clause was also not applied as an answer to the bill of lading, which preserved liability for such losses.

Conclusion: The carriers were not exempted from liability for loss caused by negligence or criminal acts.

Issue (ii): Whether the insurance company, claiming by subrogation, was barred by the policy stipulation that there should be no recourse against carriers.

Analysis: A subrogated insurer stands in the shoes of the assured and may enforce the assured's rights against the wrongdoer to the extent the loss is not covered by a valid exemption. The words "warranted no recourse against carriers" were construed as protecting the assured against objections arising from the agreed exemption, and not as a general surrender of rights against the carriers for losses outside that exemption. Since the carrier was not validly exempted for negligence-based loss, the policy wording did not defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The insurance company's subrogation claim was not barred by the policy wording.

Final Conclusion: The decree dismissing the suit could not stand, and the appeal succeeded to that extent, while the amount of damages required further enquiry if the parties did not agree.

Ratio Decidendi: A common carrier cannot contract out of liability for negligence or criminal acts by a clause that, on a fair construction, does not clearly and specifically extend to such losses; and a subrogated insurer may enforce the assured's claim where the policy does not clearly waive recourse against the carrier for that uncompensated loss.

---