Point of law: It was further held that a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence as in the event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company challenging the judgment and order dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), in MAC Case No. 608/2014 awarding compensation of Rs. 55,97,500.00/-(Rupees fifty-five lakh ninty-seven thousand and five hundred) only in favour of the claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The fact of accident has not been disputed herein this case dated 12.01.2014 at Lalmati near Nidhi Bhawan, Guwahati under Basistha Police Station involving the vehicle bearing No.AS-01AZ-5251 causing the death of Ramen Deka, husband/father/son of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 10.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) in MAC Case No. 608/2014 the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Member MACT has arbitrarily considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3, 00,000/-(Rupees three lakh) p.a. which is not based on records and is at best a presumption only. The learned Member MACT ought to have appreciated that the income of the deceased as per unproved exhibits was Rs. 2,14,928.00/-(Rupees two lakh fourteen thousand nine hundred twenty-eight) only in the assessment year 2010-11 and if the claimant failed to bring on record the income-tax returns for the subsequent years then the claimant ought not to be rewarded for his default with a hefty increase of 40% equivalent to Rs. 85,000/-approximately over the last known figure as regards the income of the deceased.

4. It is further argued that the judgment and award dated 10.09.2015 has only added to the uncertainty and lack of reasonable uniformity in the matter of determination of just compensation being in case of road accident of victims and prayed to award just and reasonable compensation as per provisions of law.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that in case of accident claim under Motor Vehicles Act the strict principles of proof in criminal case, not attracted, standard to be followed in such claims is one preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

6. It is also argued that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the compensation as mentioned under the heads as future prospects, loss of consortium, loss of care and guidance, minor children, funeral expenses, pain, loss and sufferings, medical expenses, attended charges and transportation etc. Learned counsel also contended that the assessment of income of the deceased as per income tax return is proper.

In support of his submissions learned counsel has referred the following case laws:-

a) 2013 AIR SCW 5800, Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and Ors v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service.

b) AIR 2018 SC 3107, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indiro Devi and others.

c) 2009 AIR SCW 6999 SCW 6999, Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr.

d) 2014 AIR SCW 2973 SC, V. Mekala v. M. Malathi and Anr.

e) AIR 2019 SC 994, Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another.

7. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court wherein, the income of the deceased was assessed as per income-tax return i.e., Rs. 2, 14,928.00/-(Rupees two lakh fourteen thousand nine hundred twenty-eight) only for the assessment year 2010-11.

As the deceased died in the month of January, 2014 the income of the deceased was assessed around 25,000/- p.m.

8. In MAC Case No. 608/2014 the respondent/claimant No. 1 Kalpana Kumari Deka was examined as P.W. 1 and she exhibited some documents in support of her case. Exhibit VI is the PAN Card of her deceased husband, Exhibit VII is the return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 filed by her deceased husband befo