The principles for determining compensation in a motor accident case, including the determination of annual dependency of the dependants, the suitable multiplier to be applied, and the factors to be considered in determining the suitable multiplier.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, dated October 10, 1978.

2. Briefly, the facts are that on March 19, 1974, Dwarka Dass, deceased, was coming from the Railway Station, Jind, to Jind City in a tonga. The tonga was being driven by one Ram Chander. When he reached near Jwalmala Octroi post, a truck bearing No. HRJ-5425 belonging to Om Parkash, respondent No.1, and driven by Vijey Singh, respondent No.2, collided against the tonga. As a result of that Dwarka Dass sustained injuries and died immediately. It is alleged that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. A claim petition was filed by the sons, daughter and widow of the deceased for recovery of Rs.30,000 as compensation, against the owner, his driver and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. One of the daughters of the deceased was impleaded as respondent No.4.

3. The respondents contested the petition. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a jointly written statement wherein they controverted the allegations of the petitioner and said that the accident took place on account of the negligent driving of Ram Chander, tongawala. No specific plea was taken in the written statement by Vijey Singh that he was not driving the truck but he said so while making the statement in the court. The insurance company denied its liability and also pleaded that Vijey Singh did not possess a valid licence and, therefore, was not authorised to drive the truck. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident is the result of rash and negligent Act of Vijey Singh, respondent No.2 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable without seeking the permission of the court on behalf of the minor claimants

4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the absence of impleading the tongawala as a party to the present litigation

5. Whether respondent No.5, Vijey Singh, possessed a valid licence and as such was authorised to drive the vehicle in question If not to what effect

6. Whether the present claim is barred by time

7. Relief.4. It was held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Vijey Singh, respondent; that Vijey Singh was not holding a valid licence; that the claim was within limitation and that the petitioner was entitled to Rs.30,000 as compensation. Issues Nos.3 and 4 were not pressed before it. In view of the aforesaid findings, the claimants and respondent No.4 were awarded an amount of Rs.30,000 as compensation against respondents Nos.1 and 2 only.5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the burden of issue No.5 was placed wrongly on Vijey Singh, respondent No.2. He argues that the insurance company took a plea that he had no valid licence and it was for the insurance company to prove so. He, in support of the contention, referred to Amarshi Gokaldas V/s. Indian Globe Insurance Co. Ltd. , AIR 1954 Saurashtra 81 and Jogindra Kuer V/s. Jagdish Singh AIR 1964 Pat 548.6. I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned counsel but regret my inability to accept it. The case was instituted before the Tribunal in September, 1974, and remained pending there till October, 1978. Vijey Singh, the driver, did not raise an objection regarding burden of proof either at the time of framing of issues or thereafter. If he was aggrieved regarding burden of proof, he should have made a grievance before the Tribunal. It is also well settled that after the evidence has been led, the burden of proof becomes immaterial. This point has also not been taken in the grounds of appeal. In the circumstances, the counsel for the appellants cannot be allowed to challenge the burden of proof of the said issue in the appeal in this court. I have otherwise examined the matter and find tha