C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT who received injuries in an accident caused by a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. 00 from the respondents. First respondent chose to remain ex parte both before the Tribunal and in this Court. Second respondent contested the claim by filing a counter. In support of his case, appellant examined three witnesses as PWs. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. Al to A3. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the second respondent. The Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded Rs. 1,36,000. 00as compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the claimant preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE point for consideration is to what amount the appellant is entitled to? ( 3 ) IN the claim petition it is alleged that the appellant was aged 14 years at the time of accident and was studying 8th class and was also working as a cooli earning Rs. 1,000. 00 p. m. In Ex. A3 Case Sheet, appellant is described as a person aged 14 years earning Rs. 400. 00 p. m. Ignoring the entry in Ex. A3 and the age of the appellant, the Tribunal assuming the age of the appellant as 15 years and his income as Rs. 750. 00p. m took his annual income at Rs. 9,000. 00 and taking the disability of the appellant at 75%, adopting the multiplier 20. 16, awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,36,000. 00 to the appellant. ( 4 ) WHEN appellant as P. W. 3 stated that he was studying 8th class, and did not claim himself to be a cooli earning Rs. 750. 00p. m, and when P. W. 1, father of the appellant, did not state anything about the age and earnings of the appellant, the Tribunal should have given reasons as to how it arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was a cooli earning Rs. 750. 00 p. m. by the date of accident. No reasons are given by the Tribunal. m, and when P. W. 1, father of the appellant, did not state anything about the age and earnings of the appellant, the Tribunal should have given reasons as to how it arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was a cooli earning Rs. 750. 00 p. m. by the date of accident. No reasons are given by the Tribunal. All these apart when the Apex Court in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra, 1996 ACJ 831, held that a multiplier cannot exceed 18, but how and why the Tribunal chose the multiplier at 20. 16 is not stated in the award under appeal. ( 5 ) AS per the evidence of P. W. 2 appellant has urological problem. She, (the doctor) did not state that problem would hamper either the earnings or earning capacity of the appellant. When the disability or inconvenience suffered by a victim in a road accident does not hamper his earnings or earning capacity, taking recourse to multiplier method on the basis of the income of the victim is not proper. To give an example a person earning Rs. 5,000. 00 p. m. who lost all his teeth in the accident and suffered no other disability, and when he continues to earn Rs. 5000. 00 p. m. after the accident need not be awarded compensation by applying multiplier method with reference to his income inasmuch as losing a teeth would not hamper his earnings or his earning capacity. The loss occasioned to him due to loss of teeth and the inconvenience he may have to suffer, have to be evaluated and adequate compensation has to be awarded on that basis but not by applying multiplier method. When there is no medical evidence on record to show that the urological problem of appellant would hamper his earning or earning capacity and since difficulty in passing urine per se does not hamper the earnings or earning capacity of a student studying 8th class, damages of Rs. 1,36,000. 00awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident is more than just and reasonable and there is no need to award more compensation. The point is answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.