Karnataka High Court refuses to enforce UK court order directing KSRTC to compensate British couple for accident

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to enforce an order of a United Kingdom (UK) court that had ordered compensation for a British couple who were involved in an accident with a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus two decades ago. [KSRTC vs Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine and Anr.].Justice HP Sandesh observed that the UK court had passed the order without adhering to the principles of natural justice and had decided the issue of jurisdiction solely based only on the applicants' submissions.Consequently, the Court held that the foreign court's order was neither conclusive nor based on merits, rendering it unenforceable."In the case on hand, taking into note of the material on record it discloses that the Court has not followed the principles of natural justice while recording the reasons and very importantly, basing on the application of the appellant itself, conclusively decided the issue with regard to jurisdiction and passed the order coupled with costs hence, the order passed by the foreign Court is not conclusive and not on merits and hence, the same cannot be executable," the Court said..British nationals Nigel Roderick Lloyd Harradine and Carol Ann Harradine were on a tour in Karnataka in 2002 when the car in which they were traveling collided with a KSRTC bus. The couple filed a lawsuit before a court in the UK seeking compensation for damages caused by the accident. The Court allowed the petition and directed KSRTC to provide compensationAs a result, they filed an execution petition in a Bengaluru court. KSRTC also filed a plea in the court challenging the judgment of the UK court, which was rejected. Hence, it moved the High Court..The KSRTC submitted that the order of the UK court was passed without jurisdiction and had not followed the recognized law of India. It also underlined that the decree was passed ex parte.It further highlighted that the executing court had allowed the execution petition based on a photocopy of the judgment instead of a certified copy.On the other hand, the couple contended that the UK court took cognisance of facts and evidence before passing the decree in their favour.Going into the merits of the case against would defeat the very purpose of the execution proceedings, they contended..The Court firstly noted that the KSRTC had replied to the notice by the UK court but the same was not taken into consideration.Further, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in M/S. International Woolen Mills vs M/S. Standard Wool (U.K.) Limited to assert that if a judgment is passed without evidence and the suit is decreed merely due to the absence of the defendant, the judgment could not be said to be based on merits..The Court examined the order of the foreign court and noted that no certified copy of the decree was placed before the trial court. It also noted that the objections of KSRTC on jurisdiction were not discussed. "This Court secured the Trial Court records after reserving the matter for orders and having perused the same it discloses that no certified copy of the judgment and decree of the Foreign Court is placed before the Trial Court but only a Xerox copy of the same is placed before the Court and nowhere it is found that claim has been considered on merits except passing the order and even the alleged statement of objections also not considered while passing such an order," the order stated.Another contention by the couple was that the KSRTC surrendered their jurisdiction by replying to the notice issued by the UK court.The Court pointed out that although the reply was sent, the same was not discussed in the order..Hence, the High Court held that the order of the UK court was not on merits and hence, not executable. Accordingly, the Court allowed KSRTC's revision petition and refused to execute the order of the UK court..[Read Order]