(1988)1988March 24 (A.LOIZOU. SAWIDES.KOURRIS.JJ.) ANDROULLA KYPROUANDANOTHER, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. POLYCARPOS POLYCARPIDES,. Respondent-Defendant, AND KYPROS IOANNOU, ThirdParty. (CivilAppeals Nos. 7009, 7011). Damages — General damages for persona! injuries —Medical certificates adduced in evidence by consent —TrialJudge quoted injuriesdescribed inthe firstpageofone ofthecertificates, butfailed to quote six injuries enumerated in the second page —Award increased. 5 Damages — General damages for personal injuries—Medical certificates adduced in evidence by consent — TrialJudge quoted injuriesdescribed inthe firstpage of one of the reports,but failed to quote two injuries of minor naturedescribed inthe second page — In the circumstances and without applauding the discrepancy no 10 increase ofthe awardisjustified. The facts of thiscase appear inthejudgment ofthe Court. Appeal 7009 allowed withcosts. Appeal 7011 dismissed with no orderastocosts. Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against the judgment of the District Court of Paphos (Anastassiou, S.D.J.) dated the 22nd May, 1985 (Action 148 15 1 C.L.R. Kyprouv.Polycaipldes & Another No.1042/81) whereby the defendant was adjudged to pay to plaintiff the sum of £700 as general damage for injuries sufferred byplaintiff in atraffic accident. E.Efstathiou withK.Kamenos, for the appellant - plaintiff. 5 A. Demetriades, for the respondent. Noappearance for the third party. A. LOIZOU J. gave the following judgment of.the Court. Asa result of a traffic accident that occurred on the Pachiammos Pomos road, a father and a daughter received personal injuries 10 and instituted proceedings against the defendant who isnow the respondent in this appeal. The proceedings were simplified by leaving only for determination, by the learned trial Judge in the consolidated hearing of the actions, the question of general damages and itseems that itwassimplified further byinviting the 15 learned trial Judge to decide that issue in the cases of the two injured persons by the production only of five medical certificates,three onbehalf oftheplaintiffs andtwoonbehalf ofthe defendant. Even in a so simplified case, itseems that acts of oversight are 20 inevitable because in describing the injuries received by the appellants asascertained byDr.Gregoriadeswhotreated them on admissiontothePaphoshospital,thelearnedtrialJudgecopiedin the case of Androulla Kyprou, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 7009, items of injuries which appear on the first page of.the said 25 Doctor' s report, exhibit 1, and inserted these eight items in quotation marks obviously indicating that that was the end of the matterand omitted to includeinthe description ofthe injuriessix more itemsthatarerecorded bythatdoctoronthesecondpageof his report. 30 In all fairness, we may say that at a first glance such a mistake could have happened because theDoctorsignedand inserted the dateofsosigningonthefirstpage ofhisreport,butaperusalofthe whole exhibit would have immediately shown thatthere were six other injuries suffered by the said appellants and that there were 35 also contained inthesecond page remarks astothe nature of the scars and their permanent nature, however, slightthat might be, after recovery. An omission appears also in the case of Kypros Ioannou, -the father, -the appellant inCivilAppeal No 7011,but 149 A. Lolzou J. Kyprouv.Pofycarpble· &Another
(1988)in that case the omission referred only totwoinjuries which were of such a minor nature and towhich we do not intend to attribute any importance. Another complaint advanced on behalf of the twoappellantsis that whereas in the report of the neurologist to whom they were 5 referred to after recovering from their bodily injuries, there wasa reference that dizziness and nervousness are by nature more subjective findings and these syptoms do not leave any «serious disability»; yet in hisjudgment, the learned trial Judge described thissituation byreference tothecertificate inquestion, i.e.exhibit 10 5, asthe subjective findings ofanxiety, dizziness and nervousness that left no«disability whatsoever». Itisaminordiscrepancy inour view but itwill be advisable when quoting medical certificates, at least toquote them correctly. We have considered the totality of the injuries received by 15 appellant Androulla Kyprou, andwehavecometothe conclusion that the amount of £700 damages assessed on a full liability basis is inadequate, in the circumstances, even if we were to consider only the injuries described bytheMedical Experton the first page of his report and included in the Judgment as being the only 20 injuries suffered by that appellant, more so, however, because of the grave omission to refer tosixother injuries. In the circumstances, and having in mind similar comparable awards which naturally have, from time to time to be adjusted to changing conditions of life, we have come to the conclusion that 25 the amount of £1,600 would meet adequately thesituation in the case of this appellant. CivilAppeal No. 7009 istherefore allowed and the amount of general damages is increased on a full liability basis to £1,600. with costs against the respondent and thejudgment under appeal 30 variedtothatextentaccordingly.Itfollowsthatontheagreed basis of 30% contribution bythethirdpartyandafter adding£280.-the agreed special damages to the amount of general damages as above assessed, the third party will have to indemnity the defendant in the sum of £564.- and the judgment for the 35 defendant against him isalso varied accordingly but there will be no order as to costsin thisappeal. As regards Civil Appeal No. 7011 of Kypros Ioannou, we find, on the totality of the circumstances and though weshould not be 150 1C L . R . Kyprouv.Po^ycafpldes & Another A. LoUou J. considered asinanywayapplauding the discrepancies asregards the medical report, that there is no reason to interfere with the amount awarded and,therefore, thisappealisdismissedbutinthe circumstances, there will be no order as to costs once the two 5 appeals have been heard together and they were part of the consolidated proceedings. IntheresultCivilAppealNo.7009isallowedand the judgment of the trial Court is varied as above with costs against the respondent. 10 CivilAppeal No. 7011 isdismissed with no order asto costs. Appeal No. 7009 allowed with costsagainst respondent. Appeal No. 7011 dismissed without costs. 151