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. 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 before the income-tax department, Exhibit VIII is the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 and Exhibit IX is the return of income-tax for the assessment year 2011-12. It is seen that the deceased Ramen Deka was dealing with the business of goods transport agency in the name of Kamala Roadlines situated at Nalapana, Guwahati. It is seen that the deceased Ramen Deka was dealing with the business of goods transport agency in the name of Kamala Roadlines situated at Nalapana, Guwahati. P.W. 1 has exhibited the certificate of registration of Kamala Road lines Vide exhibit X (i) and exhibit X (ii). 9. Though the Insurance Company i.e. the appellant has preferred an appeal only on the ground for income of the deceased based on Income-tax return for the assessment year 2010-11, but it is evident to note that no objection regarding the mode of proof was raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company at the time P.W. 1 has tendered those documents in evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that the deceased Ramen Deka was having a regular source of income which was increasing as evident from the income-tax returns of the deceased. 11. Per Contra learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said income-tax returns could not be taken to be proved as the claimant had not summoned the records from the income-tax department. As stated above, no objection as to the mode of proof was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant when they were tendered in evidence by P.W. 1. 12. In the case of R.Ve.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami reported in 2003 (8) SCC 752 Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered. It was held that the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. It was held that this proposition is a rule of fair play and the crucial test is whether such objection would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. It was further observed that the omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. 13. It was further observed that the omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. 13. In the aforesaid case, 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. 14. In the case at hand, since no objection was raised by the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of tendering of the said documents in evidence the appellant cannot raise any objection in respect of the same at this stage. It is also to be kept in mind that the appellant had given a suggestion to P.W. 1 that the income-tax returns were manufactured. If this was so nothing prevented the appellant from leading evidence and summoning the record from the income-tax department about the genuiness of those returns, i.e. whether the same were filed or not. However, the appellant/insurance company has not laid any evidence in this matter. These returns were filed much prior to the death of the victim. It does not lie in any person’s mouth to contend that the deceased in the anticipation of his death in a road traffic accident filed those returns in order to ensure the substantial compensation in proceedings under the Act. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the income-tax returns for the assessment year 201011 showing the monthly income of the deceased around Rs. 25,000/- in a month. 15. According to the claimant, the age of her husband was 36 years at the time of accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly assess the income of the deceased on the basis of the income-tax returns for the assessment year 201011 showing the monthly income of the deceased around Rs. 25,000/- in a month. 15. According to the claimant, the age of her husband was 36 years at the time of accident. To prove the age of the deceased the claimant has exhibited admit card and PAN card of her deceased husband, wherein the age of her husband was shown as 01.01.1978. The accident occurred on 12.01.2014. It transpires that age of the deceased was 36 years when the accident took place. As per the case of Sarla Verma and others v. DTC and others reported in AIR (2009) 6 SCC 121 the multiplier would be 15. 16. In the instant case, the deceased left behind his wife, two minor daughters and his mother. As such the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of deceased is applicable as stated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Considering the aforesaid mandate in the instant case since there is four numbers of dependants ¼th of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been alive, he could have spent ¼th for his personal and living expenses. 17. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in SLP (Civil) No. 25590/2014 it was observed that while determining the income of the deceased in case of self employed or on a fixed salary an addition of 40 % of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. 18. In the case in hand, age of the deceased was 36 years when the accident occurred. So 40 % should be added along with his established income of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence monthly income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 25,000/- + 10,000=35,000/-. 19. As per the case of PranaySethi(supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation in case of death, reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses should be Rs. 40,000+ Rs. 15,000+ Rs. 15,000 respectively. 20. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion in the instant case, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows:- 1. Annual income of the deceased Rs. 35,000X12= 4,20,000/- 2. 40,000+ Rs. 15,000+ Rs. 15,000 respectively. 20. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion in the instant case, the computation of compensation is awarded as follows:- 1. Annual income of the deceased Rs. 35,000X12= 4,20,000/- 2. After deducting ¼th of the annual income of the deceased, amount comes to Rs. 3,15,000/- 3. After multiplied with multiplier, amount comes to 3,15,000X15= 47,25,000/- 4. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs.47,95,000/-(Rupees forty-seven lakhs and Ninty-five thousand) ORDER 21. In the result, appeal is partly allowed with aforesaid modification, awarding Rs. 47,95,000/-(Rupees forty-seven lakhs and ninty-five thousand) only with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case. The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order in the savings account of the claimant No.1 Smti. Kalpana Kumari Deka through NEFT. Claimant No. 1 is directed to furnish her bank details of any Nationalized Bank to the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. for the necessary payment. It is made clear that Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) only be awarded for mother of the deceased. 22. The amount already paid be adjusted accordingly. 23. LCR’s be returned. 24. Statutory amount in deposit be returned accordingly.