Karnataka High Court Says London Court's Order Directing KSRTC To Compensate British Couple For Accident Not On Merits, Not Executable

The Karnataka High Court has allowed an application filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and held that a decree issued by a court in the United Kingdom (UK), directing compensation be paid to a British couple who suffered injuries when they met with an accident in 2002, while travelling in a car which was hit by a KSRTC bus, is not executable in law as the same is not on merits.

The decree holders had filed a case in Ashford Country Court and obtained the judgment and decree in their favour. The court in UK had vide its order dated 22-02-2007, directed KSRTC to pay the claimants- Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine and his wife Carol- a sum of £31431.33.

A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh said, “The judgment of the foreign Court is not executable since the same is not on merits and it suffers from its legality and correctness and hence, the revision petition requires to be allowed.”

The claimants submitted that on 18.03.2002 they were travelling in a car from Mysuru when a KSRTC bus coming from the opposite direction collided. They claimed the car was engaged by M/s. Somak Travels Limited and hence the claim was preferred in the UK. The foreign Court allowed the claim petition and directed KSRTC to pay compensation.

On account of non-payment of compensation, claimants filed an execution petition in India in response to which KSRTC moved an application under Section 47 of CPC praying the Court to hold that the decree is not executable in law. Dissatisfied with the Trial court's findings, KSRTC approached the High Court.

The High Court secured the trial Court records and on perusing it was found that no certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Foreign Court was placed before the Trial Court; only a Xerox copy was produced. Moreover, Court said it is nowhere found that the claim was considered by the foreign court on merits, even the alleged statement of objections was not considered.

“Having perused the orders of the Foreign Court also nothing is discussed with regard to whether statement of objections sent through an advocate through whom notice was served was part of the records or not and also not discussed anything about the objection raised with regard to no jurisdiction is concerned. Hence, it is clear that the said order is not executable since the same is not on merits,” the High Court said.

It relied on M/S. International Woollen Mills v. M/S. Standard Wool (UK) Ltd. (2001) wherein the Apex Court court considered Section 13(b) of CPC regarding Foreign judgment and held that if an ex-parte decree is passed, the same cannot be presumed to be on merits.

The court said “No doubt, the Trial Court also invoked Section 44A of CPC. The Trial Court while invoking Section 44A comes to the conclusion that the same can be enforced in India for the purpose of Section 44A but fails to take note of the fact that the judgment of the foreign Court is not on merits.”

It added “No doubt, admittedly, notice was given and the same was served through an advocate and revision petitioner also claims that they sent the reply and the same is not forthcoming in the order of the foreign Court and nothing is discussed in the order even for the objection which has been raised and the same is not on merits as held by this Court.”

Accordingly it allowed the appeal.

Case Title: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation And Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine

Case No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.453/2017

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 279

Date of Order: 14-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate P.D. Surana for Appellant.

Advocate Vijay B K for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order