https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307943 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. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 1910 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2023 15:52:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307943 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Jul 1910 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307943