JUDGMENTBY: CHOOR SINGH J

(delivering judgment of the court): This appeal arises from a claim by the plaintiff for damages for personal injuries suffered by her and caused by the negligent driving of the defendant. A writ and statement of claim having been served on the defendant and no defence having been filed, the plaintiff entered judgment for damages to be assessed. The hearing on the question of damages took place before the learned Deputy Registrar who assessed general damages in the sum of $ 28,800 and special damages in the sum of $ 1,100. The defendant thereupon appealed to the High Court on the ground that the learned Deputy Registrar having assessed general damages in the sum of $ 24,000, had wrongly increased them by twenty per cent, that is, had added the sum of$ 4,800 to the award on the ground that there was a discernible trend of a twenty per cent increase in the recent awards of the High Court. The appeal was heard by the honourable the Chief Justice who reduced the award by the said sum of $ 4,800. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Chief Justice now appeals to this court against the said judgment.

The facts are not in dispute. At the hearing on the question of damages before the learned Deputy Registrar, evidence was given by the plaintiff and a specialist doctor on the nature of injuries suffered by the plaintiff. After hearing submissions made by both counsel the Deputy Registrar, as earlier stated, assessed general damages at $ 24,000 plus twenty per cent i.e. in all $ 28,800, and it is common ground that this twenty per cent was added because he accepted the submission made by counsel for the plaintiff that recently the High Court has made awards in running down cases which represent an increase, generally speaking, of twenty per cent when compared with awards for comparable injuries made in earlier years. It is also apparent from the record of the hearing before the Deputy Registrar that the sum of $ 24,000 assessed as general damages was the total of six items in respect of six different injuries. Counsel for the defendant had submitted that this total should be scaled down on the principle of over-lapping, and counsel for the plaintiff had opposed such scaling down on the ground that there were six separate and distinct injuries and therefore there was no question of scaling down. As the sum of $ 24,000 was not scaled down by the Deputy Registrar it is clear that he either did not accept the principle of scaling down or he was of the view it was not applicable to the facts of this case.

Before the Chief Justice the award of $ 28,800 was attacked by counsel for the defendant on the ground that the Deputy Registrar was wrong in increasing the assessment of general damages by twenty per cent and that such increase was arbitrary and wrong. On the other hand counsel for the plaintiff maintained that the Deputy Registrar was justified in adding twenty per cent and he repeated his arguments before the Deputy Registrar. In allowing the appeal the Chief Justice observed:--

"... In my judgment the Deputy Registrar was wrong in principle in

assessing damages on that basis. The well known and long established

principles which govern a court in assessing general damages for

injuries sustained by a plaintiff arising out of the negligence of a

defendant are still applicable and they do not permit a court to arrive

at an amount it would award and then to add a percentage increase on to

it because of, say, an increase in the cost of living.

In the present case, in my judgment the Deputy Registrar has indicated

that for all the injuries sustained by the plaintiff the sum of $ 24,

000 would be his estimate of the general damages and I am unable to say

that this sum is so inadequate as to justify this court, in its

appellate capacity to interfere with it. I therefore allowed the appeal.

"

Before us it was contended by counsel f