[VASSILIADES, COSTAS 1966 March 17 MUNIR. JOSEPHIDHS, JJ.j MICHAELIDES, COSTAS Appellant-plaintiff. MICHAELIDES r. MICHAEL POLYVIOU, Respondent-Defendant.. Ί {Civil Appeal No. 4556)>'' Civil Wrong*-Road Traffic—Hood accident—Damages—Spe-. vial and general damages--Appeal against assessment and award of—No grounds on the record which could justify in tervention by Court of Appeal with trial Court's award of special damages—Award of general damages to appellant increased as being an erroneous estimate of his damage at present money value. Damages—Road traffic —Road actidem—Special and general da mages—See under "Civil wrongs" above. The appellant-plaintiff who sustained personal injuries in a road accident andwas awarded £500 special damages and £1,000 general damages, appealed against the award of damages mainly on the ground (\at in the circumstances of the case the amount w;isloosnr·) considering the injuries and the permanent disability Miff'.ed byhim. Held, on the question of special damages : We take first the item of special damages, where the trial Court found and awarded £500- Rightly ii. our opinion, learned coun sel for the appellant conceded, in (he course of his argument. that theie areno grounds on the record, which could justify intervention with the award on this item. //c/(/. on the question of general damages : We unani mously take the view thai the amount awarded to compen sate the appellant for his loss in this respect, is clearly an erroneous estimate of his damages at present money \alue; and must be increased by fifty per cent, i.e.be increased from £1,000 to £1,
- Appeal allowed. Cases referred to .Cliristodoulou v. Menicou (reported in this part atp. 17 ante). 155 MICHAEL POLYVIOU •-.''* , 1966 Maich 17 Appeal. — iiitiMiims „ MKUMI Anneal against the judgment of the District Couit of Ltni.issol (Malyah and Bella Π JJ ) dated the 30th No\ember, c r l '6 ), (Action No l?58/64) wheieby the plamtifl was .iw.uded the sum <>l CI,500 foi in|iuicshe susiained in a inadaeudenl I'm ι \ i'in .1/ Monutmos (ι Ca(o\uttitm with Ρ Par/on. foi the appellant with \ Iupakoudes, foi the icspondent The tudgmenl oi' the Coin I was delivered by VASSII 1ΛΟΙs, J llns is an appeal agumsl the assess ment and award of damages, made by the Distnct Court in favour ol the appellant-plaintiff, in this road-accident case 1 lability was admitted on behalf of the respondent at the opening of the trial , and the only issue on which Ihe case pioceeded was the amount of damages to which the appellant plaintiff was entitled Upon the evidence before them, and aftei hearing counsel on both sides, the District Couit awarded £1,500 undei two heads Special damages, £500 , and genet aI damages CI 000 Against this award, the plaintiff appealed on the giound that in the eirumslanccs ol the case, the amount is tot) small considering the injuries and permanent disability stiflcied by the appellant In ( In/Modotdoii ν Menu on (reported in this pail at ρ 17 utile), which was iceenlly decided in this Court, and lo which learned counsel beloie us have referred, Josephides J , in dchveimg the |udgment of the Court, said Having given the mailer our best eonsideialion, we arc not convinced thai the Court acted upon some wrong pnnciple ol law, oi that the amount awaidcd was so vei\ small as lo make it, in the judgment of this Court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled " I olliiwmg this appioach to the question under consideration in the piesenl appeal, we hike first the item of special dama ge-., wheie the dial <" t>uit lound and awarded C500 Rightly in (un opinion, learned counsel lor the appellant conceded, in ihe utilise ol his aigumuil, thai there are no grounds on the iccoid, whn.h could justify intervention with the award on ihts item |S6 Taking now the next Hem, £1,000 for general damages, we have to test the award on the question whether it is an " entirely erroneous estimate o f the damage to which the plaintiff is entitled ". T h e amount under this head must compensate the appellant for pain, suffering and inconveni ence for the first six months after the accident, during which he had his right hand immobilised in plaster ; for suffering and inconvenience during the period of treatment which followed ; for, probably permanent terminal restriction o\' the right wrist mobility, and moderate weakness o f the grip ping power o f the right hand ; for the established pr>eudarthrosis o f the scaphoid bone in that wrist and post traumatic osteoarthritis changes in the j o i n t ; for 15% (fifteen percent) residual permanent partial incapacity for the rest oi' his hfc ; and, in addition, for putting this skilled carpenter o\' the age \^i' 44, practically out o f his trade as barrel maker, for ihe rest ol' his working days. We unanimously take the view that the amount awaided lo compensate Ihe appellant for his loss in this respect, is clearly an erroncou.s estimate o f his damages at present mo ney value ; and must be increased by f i f t y per cent, i.e. be increased f r o m £1,000 to CI,
- We, therefore, allow the appeal to this extent, and vary the judgment into one f o r £2,000 (t vo thousand pounds). W i t h costs on the appropriate scale (viz. that applicable to claims not exceeding C2.000), in the district Court as oidered and in the appeal, for one advocat' . There will be judgment and onler lor costs according!}. Appeal allowed. (>rda J·» costs as aforesaid. 157 1% ° ^_ CosiAi MICHAFUDIS dr l η ΜΚΙΙΛΕΙ. Ι'ΊίΛΜΓρυ