Bangalore District Court
Smt.Pillanarayanamma vs M/S.Royal Sundaram on 19 March, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015
PRESENT : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., LL.B.,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.166/2011
Petitioner/s 1.Smt.Pillanarayanamma,
W/o Basavaraj,
Aged about 28 years.
2.Sri.Basavaraju,
S/o Marappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Doddadasenahally Village,
Kundalagurki P.O.
Sidlaghatta Taluk,
Chikballapur District.
Presently both are residing at
No.167/c, 6th cross,
Near Maruthi Circle,
Gayathri Nagar,
Bengaluru- 21.
(By Pleader -
Sri.A.Shivarama.)
V/s
Respondent/s 1.M/s.Royal Sundaram
Alliance Gneral Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Represented by its Branch
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.166/2011
Manager,
No.182, 20th cross, 20th main,
Marenahalli main road,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
(By Pleader - Sri.K.Prakash)
2.Sri.Chakra E.M.High School,
Represented by its
Correspondent
C.Chandra Shekhar Raju Bose,
Nagar Rayachogy (P & M),
Kadapa District,
Andra Pradesh.
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
3.Rajivgandhi English School,
R/by its Principal
Y.Hunasenahalli,
Shidlighatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation on account of death of Master Bharath, the son of petitioners in the road traffic accident.
2. Initially, this petition was assigned to the Hon'ble SCCH-10 and subsequently, as per the Notification No.ADMI/419/2014 dated 06.05.2014, it is (SCCH-15) 3 MVC.166/2011 reassigned to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.
3. The brief case of petitioners is that on 30.11.2010 at about 4:45 p.m., the deceased was walking on the road near Doddadesana Halli gate, at that time school van of 2 nd respondent bearing registration No.KA-04/6869 came from Doddadasena Halli gate and was proceeding towards Kundalagurki. The driver of school bus came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased.
b) Due to the impact, the deceased fell down and suffered grievous injuries all over the body and died at the spot itself. Accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent act of school bus driver. Therefore, 2nd respondent being the RC owner and 1 st respondent being the insurer of school bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition as sought for.
(SCCH-15) 4 MVC.166/2011
4. In response to due service of notices, 2 nd respondent remained exparte. 1st respondent has put its appearance through its counsel and filed its statement of objections to the main petition denying the petition averments. It has contended that if the pleadings of the petitioners are taken note off, it appears that the deceased himself has contributed negligence in occurrence of the accident.
b) It has admitted the policy and its force on the date of accident but has contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It has specifically contended that at the time of accident, the vehicle was used by Rajiv Gandhi English School, Hunsehalli gate, Siddlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur and therefore, being custodian of the vehicle at the time of accident, the said school authority is necessary party. Therefore, petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs.
(SCCH-15) 5 MVC.166/2011
5. On the above said pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor in office i.e. the then Presiding Officer of SCCH-10 was pleased to frame the following issues.
Whether petitioners prove that the deceased Master Bharath has died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.11.2010 at about 04:45 p.m. near Doddadasena Halli Gate, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, within the jurisdiction of Sidlaghatta police station on account of rash and negligent driving of school bus bearing registration No.KA-04/6869 by its driver as alleged??
Whether petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom?
What order or award?
6. Since despite sufficient opportunities,
petitioners have not let in their evidence, the petition came to be dismissed for default as per the order dated 11.01.2012. However, subsequently in view of the order passed in Misc.67/2012 dated 13.12.2012, this petition is restored. Subsequent to the restoration, in support of their case, 2nd petitioner has entered into (SCCH-15) 6 MVC.166/2011 witness box as PW-1. Got examined alleged eyewitness by name Somashekar @ Narayanaswamy as PW-2. Got exhibited 8 documents and closed their side.
b) Per contra, 1st respondent got examined the investigating officer of the crime registered with regard to the present accident as RW-1 and its State Head Legal, T.P. Claims as RW-2. Got exhibited 7 documents and closed his side.
7. In the meanwhile, petitioner got amended its petition including Rajiv Gandhi English School as 3 rd respondent who is the alleged custodian of the vehicle at the time of accident. 3rd respondent remained exparte. Hence, heard both sides on merits of the case, In addition, counsel for 1 st respondent has filed his written arguments along with xerox copies of the decision reported in;
1.2009 ACJ 1411(SC) 2.2008 AIR SCW 4048, 3.2009 AIR SCW 2865, 4.2008 ACJ 1307,
5.AIR 2006 SC 2138,
6.AIR(37) 1950 SC 265(FB) 7.2006 AIR SCW 5312
8. 2009 ACJ 437, (SCCH-15) 7 MVC.166/2011
9. ILR 2012 KAR 6065
10.MANU/KA/0718/2009 & judgment passed in
11. MFA.30903/2009.
This Tribunal has carefully gone through the above reported decisions and unreported judgment and as well as perused the records.
8. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said issues are answered in the;
1. Issue No.1 : Affirmative.
2. Issue No.2 : Petitioners are entitled for Compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
at the rate of 60:40
together with interest
@ 8% p.a. from the
date of petition till the
realization in its
entirety from 2 and 3rd
nd
respondents who are
jointly and severally
liable to pay the
compensation.
3. Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1:- Even, 1st respondent has disputed the rash and negligent aspect on the part of school bus driver, it has contended that accident took place (SCCH-15) 8 MVC.166/2011 because of negligent act of deceased himself. Therefore, absolutely, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the alleged accident; the date, place and time of accident; the vehicles involved in the accident; the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and the fact that the deceased was pedestrian at the time of accident. Hence, the only point now remained for consideration is the rash and negligent aspect.
10. To establish that 1st petitioner himself has entered into witness box as PW-1. He has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the entire petition averments. He has specifically deposed that accident took place because of the negligent driving of bus driver.
11. However, it is elicited in his cross-examination that he was not present at the time of accident and he came to know about the accident from the public at the spot i.e. passers on the road. So, whatever he has deposed with regard to the rash and negligent aspect (SCCH-15) 9 MVC.166/2011 as well as manner of the accident is nothing but hearsay evidence.
12. However, petitioner got examined the alleged eyewitness by name Somashekar @ Narayanaswamy as PW-2. He has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has stated that he along with D.N.Nagaraj were proceeding on the accident spot. At the time, they saw the school driver coming with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashing against the deceased who was proceeding on the road.
13. He has also deposed that immediately they came to the spot and saw the deceased died because of accidental injuries. During his cross-examination, his chief evidence is denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied by him. He has also stated that he has lodged complaint and accident took place because of negligent driving of the school bus.
14. At this stage, it is important to note that admittedly deceased is aged about 14 years a minor boy. Therefore, negligence cannot be attributed on his (SCCH-15) 10 MVC.166/2011 part. Moreover, in support of their case petitioners have produced police papers such as true copies of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, inquest report, statement of Basavaraj/2 nd petitioner, PM report and charge sheet at Ex.P-1 to 7.
16. All the police papers categorically reveal that initially the jurisdictional police have registered criminal case against the bus driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and after investigation, they have charge sheeted the bus driver for the offences alleged.
16. Even, there is no dispute raised on behalf of 1 st respondent with regard to the jurisdictional police charge sheeting the school bus driver, in view of its specific defence that accident took place because of negligent act of the deceased, it is mandate on its part to let in supportive defence evidence. But there is no cross-examination at all on behalf of 1 st respondent with regard to the police papers which are in consonance with the case of petitioners.
(SCCH-15) 11 MVC.166/2011
17. Moreover, there is presumption with regard to the police papers that they are prepared by the investing officers during discharge of their official duties while investigating into a crime. Of course the said presumption is rebuttal one. But, 1 st respondent has not at all let in any such rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, police papers are supported by oral evidence of PW-2, the eyewitness.
18. Therefore, petitioners with the oral evidence of 1st petitioner coupled with oral evidence of alleged eyewitness PW-2, supported by the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 7 have successfully proved that accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of bus driver.
19. So far the death of the deceased because of accidental injuries, absolutely no dispute at all. Moreover to establish that petitioners with the oral evidence of 1st petitioner and PW-2 have also placed their reliance on the police papers which categorically reveal that the deceased died at the spot itself because (SCCH-15) 12 MVC.166/2011 of the accidental injuries. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
20. ISSUE No.2:- It is the case of petitioners that they are parents of the deceased. There is no dispute raised on behalf of 1st respondent about the relationship of petitioners with the deceased. On the other hand, it is suggested for 1st respondent to 2nd petitioner that accident took place because of negligence of his son/the deceased himself.
21. Mover, the statement of 2nd petitioner at Ex.P-5 in the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-4 also in support of their case, wherein it is stated that the deceased is the son of 2nd petitioner. Therefore, petitioners being legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to file the present petition seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased.
22. In view of answering issue No.1 in affirmative, petitioners are of course, entitled for compensation. Now, in respect of quantum. It is the case of petitioners that the deceased was aged 14 years and was a (SCCH-15) 13 MVC.166/2011 student. So far as age of the deceased, petitioners have produced Ex.P-8, the marks card of 7th standard pertains to deceased wherein his date of birth is shown as 08.04.1997.
23. The date of accident is 30.11.2010. So, as per Ex.P-8, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged more than 13 years. In the police papers, it is stated that the age of the deceased was 14 years. It is also there in the inquest mahazar at Ex.P-4 that the deceased was 9th standard student. Moreover, the age and the fact that the deceased was student is not disputed by the other side. Hence, it is accepted that the deceased was aged 14 years and was student at the time of accident.
24. It is the case of petitioners that they are respectively aged about 28 and 38 years. They have not produced any documents in that regard. However, the other side has not disputed the age of petitioners. The deceased died being minor child living behind his parents as his legal heirs.
(SCCH-15) 14 MVC.166/2011
25. It is the case of petitioners that deceased was their only son and it is reiterated by 2 nd petitioner in his affidavit evidence. There is no cross-examination about the said fact. Hence there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of petitioners that the deceased was their only son and they are forced to see the death of their minor son at their middle age. Therefore, it is just and proper to award some reasonable compensation for loss of love and affection and loss of estate.
26. It is held in the decision reported in ILR 2011 Karn. 2143 that in case of minor, the multiplier be calculated by adding the remaining years of minor to attain majority to the age of younger parent. In the present case on hand, the age of mother of the deceased/1st petitioner is as observed above 28 years. The age of the deceased is 14 years. So, 4 years remained to the deceased to attain the age of majority. If the said years/4 years added to the age of 2 nd (SCCH-15) 15 MVC.166/2011 petitioner it comes to 32 years for which the proper multiplier is applicable 16.
27. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Civil Appeal No.7137/2013 that rupee value has come down drastically from the year 1994, and the reasonable notional income of minor is taken at Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for the compensation under the heads mentioned below and the amount stated against them.
1. Loss of Dependency (Rs.30,000 x 16) Rs.4,80,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- each)
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- each)
4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total: Rs.6,00,000/-
28. Considering the cost of living as on the date of the accident, it is thought fit to award interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization of the compensation amount in its entirety.
29. Now in respect of liability. 1 st respondent has not disputed the petition averments that 2 nd respondent (SCCH-15) 16 MVC.166/2011 is the RC owner of the vehicle but has contended that at the time of accident the bus was being plied for 3 rd respondent. Accordingly, petitioner has made 3 rd respondent also as party to this proceeding.
30. It is the defence of 1st respondent that on the date of accident, the accused driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive class of vehicle i.e. school bus which is LMV transport. Therefore, there is breach of policy conditions on driving licence.
31. To establish its defence, 1 st respondent got examined the investigating officer of the crime registered with regard to the present accident as RW-1 who has deposed that on going through the records, it is found that accused driver Hanumanthu did possess LMV (non-transport) driving licence.
32. He has also deposed that the school bus involved in the accident is yellow board and there was no effective driving license to the accused driver to drive the said school bus. He has denied the suggestion (SCCH-15) 17 MVC.166/2011 for petitioner that the accused driver did possess valid and effective driving license to drive the said school bus.
33. It is important to note that it is not the case of petitioner that the vehicle is not of yellow board and not transport vehicle. So, the evidence of RW-1 supports the case of 1st respondent that the school bus involved in this case is commercial passenger transport vehicle.
34. At this stage it is also important to go through the insurance policy at Ex.R-9. The said document is an admitted rather an undisputed document wherein the vehicle is described as "SFC 407 Twin tyre Semi Sleeper Deluxe with AC" and the seating capacity including driver is 13. The policy is styled as "passenger carrying vehicle liability only policy".
35. Of course, the driving license of the accused driver is not produced by either party. During the evidence of RW-2, the State Head Legal of 1 st respondent the true copies of notice dated 07.08.2014 (SCCH-15) 18 MVC.166/2011 issued to 2nd respondent; postal receipt and postal acknowledgement in proof of sending the said notice to 2nd respondent at Ex.R-2 to 4 are produced.
36. He has also produced the office copy of the legal notice dated 16.12.202014 issued to 2 nd respondent, postal receipt as well as unserved postal cover in that regard respectively at Ex.R-5 to 8. Ex.R-2 to 8 show that 1st respondent has made its best efforts to secure the driving license and the vehicular documents from 2nd respondent, but in vain.
37. However, RW-1 has specifically deposed that the accused driver did possess only LMV (NT) driving license. The same is not disputed by the petitioners. So, if the entire evidence is taken in a nut shell, it is clear that the accused driver did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the school bus in question.
38. RW-1 has also deposed that the authorized person to whom the vehicle i.e. the school bus released is one Muniswamegowda S/o late Channarayappa who (SCCH-15) 19 MVC.166/2011 is Secretary of Rajivgandhi Educational Trust. He has also deposed that despite of due notice, the said Muniswamegowda did not produce any vehicular documents.
39. He has also deposed that Except form No.23, there were no other vehicular documents in the possession of the aforesaid authorized person. There was no FC and permit to the said bus. At this stage, witness voluntarily deposed that the authorized person Muniswamigowda stated that he has not even transferred RC into his name and therefore he has charge sheeted alleging the offence punishable under Section 177 of MV Act.
40. Even during his cross-examination, he stood on his chief evidence. Therefore, if the entire evidence of RW-1 is taken into consideration, on the date of accident, the vehicular documents were not yet transferred in the name of Muniswamegowda who was the custodian of the vehicle.
(SCCH-15) 20 MVC.166/2011
41. RW-2, the State Head Legal of 1 st respondent has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the defence raised on behalf of 1 st respondent. Admittedly, 2nd respondent the RC owner remained exparte and as observed above, the efforts made by 1st respondent to secure the vehicle documents from 2nd respondent went in vain.
42. However, even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that vehicular documents were in order and force in the name of 2nd respondent, then also in view of 1st respondent successfully proving that the accused driver did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the class of vehicle i.e. the school bus involved in the present accident, liability cannot be saddled on the 1st respondent. Accordingly, only the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively being the RC owner and the custodian of the vehicle at the time of accident are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
43. Considering the age of petitioners and their relationship with the deceased it is thought just and (SCCH-15) 21 MVC.166/2011 proper to apportion the compensation amount amongst them at 60:40 respectively.
44. Hence, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- at the rate of 60:40 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd and 3rd respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
45. ISSUE No.3:- From the above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- at the rate of 60:40 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd and 3rd respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2nd and 3rd respondents shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today. (SCCH-15) 22 MVC.166/2011
On deposit of compensation amount all st 1 & 2nd petitioners shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest as well as cost to be paid to the petitioners individually through account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court by me on this the 19th day of March, 2015.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
PW1: Basavaraju PW2: Somashekar
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: Ramesh
RW2: Sandeep
(SCCH-15) 23 MVC.166/2011
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 - True copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 - True copy of spot mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of spot sketch Ex.P4 True copy of inquest report Ex.P5 True copy of statement of one Basavaraj Ex.P6 PM report Ex.P7 - True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P8 - Marks card of Deceased person pertaining to 7 th standard.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter, Ex.R2 : True copy of notice dtd.07.08.2014 issued to the insured RC owner 2nd respondent, Ex.R3 : Postal receipt, Ex.R4 : Postal acknowledgment, Ex.R5 : Office copy of legal notice dtd.16.12.2014 issued to the insured RC owner 2nd respondent, Ex.R6 : Postal receipt, Ex.R7 : Unserved postal cover Ex.R7(a) Notice in Ex.R7 (cover opened in open court, notice exhibited through the witness), Ex.R7(b) Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.R8 : Office copy of legal notice dtd.16.12.2014,
Ex.R9 : True copy of policy.
(K.KATYAYINI),
XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
(SCCH-15) 24 MVC.166/2011
19/03/2015:
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- at the rate of 60:40 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd and 3rd respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2nd and 3rd respondents shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount all st 1 & 2nd petitioners shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-
respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest as well as cost to be paid to the petitioners individually through account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw a decree accordingly.
(SCCH-15) 25 MVC.166/2011
(K.KATYAYINI) XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
(SCCH-15) 26 MVC.166/2011
AWARD SCCH NO.15 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY MVC No.166/2011 Petitioner/s 1.Smt.Pillanarayanamma, W/o Basavaraj, Aged about 28 years.
2.Sri.Basavaraju, S/o Marappa, Aged about 38 years, Doddadasenahally Village, Kundalagurki P.O. Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikballapur District.
Presently both are residing at No.167/c, 6th cross, Near Maruthi Circle, Gayathri Nagar, Bengaluru- 21.
(By Pleader - Sri.A.Shivarama.) V/s Respondent/s 1.M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Gneral Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, No.182, 20th cross, 20th main, Marenahalli main road, Bengaluru - 560 040.
(By Pleader - Sri.K.Prakash)
2.Sri.Chakra E.M.High School, Represented by its Correspondent C.Chandra Shekhar Raju Bose, Nagar Rayachogy (P & M), Kadapa District, Andra Pradesh.
(By Pleader - Exparte.) (SCCH-15) 27 MVC.166/2011
3.Rajivgandhi English School, R/by its Principal Y.Hunasenahalli, Shidlighatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
(By Pleader - Exparte.) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner above named under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, praying for compensation of Rs.
for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/death in a motor accident caused by vehicle bearing No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before K.Katyayini, Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, in the presence of Shri Advocate for petitioner/s and of Shri Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- at the rate of 60:40 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from (SCCH-15) 28 MVC.166/2011 2nd and 3rd respondents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2nd and 3rd respondents shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount all 1st & 2nd petitioners shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest as well as cost to be paid to the petitioners individually through account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
By the By the Respondent
Petitioners
Court fee paid on petition
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee:
Total
Decree Drafted by: Scrutinised by:
Decree Clerk: Sheristedar: MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-15) 29 MVC.166/2011