not to substitute its view for that of the Court below. It is only to see that the decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise it beyond redemption. 9.2 It is also well settled that an order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible, which, in the impugned order the High Court seems to have done. 9.3 The question before the High Court was not as to which yardstick to use to determine the notional income of the deceased was ‘better’. Since there is nothing on record to establish that the rates notified by the District Commissioner, Rohtak, would not apply to the deceased, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Further, the testimonies of PWs 2, 5 and 6 show that he is an agriculturist who owned his own tractor and a JCB machine. 4| SLP(C) Nos.23939-40 of 20239.4 The second aspect is the age of the deceased. The High Court, relied on the age as mentioned in the Aadhar Card