The estimation of income for compensation and the finding of contributory negligence must be based on sound and cogent reasons, and the courts should not interfere unjustifiably with such findings.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, thereby reducing the compensation payable to the appellants.

3. The deceased-Aruldoss had died in an accident, as such, the appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased had filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chennai ('MACT') for compensation. The MACT calculated the compensation by determining the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month.

4. Being aggrieved thereby, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ('the Insurance Company'), went in appeal. The learned single Judge of the High Court, though maintained the finding with regard to contributory negligence, held that the income of Rs.15,000/- per month determined by MACT was on the higher side and therefore, calculated the compensation by treating the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. Ms. Bhabna Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the High Court has grossly erred in interfering with the income estimated by the MACT. She further submits that both the MACT as well as the High Court have grossly erred in holding that 10% amount was liable to be deducted on account of contributory negligence.

6. Ms. Amreeta Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company on the contrary submits that the learned single Judge of the High Court was right in estimating the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month in as much as the deceased was working as a Mason. She further submits that no interference is called for with the judgment of the High Court.

7. We are of the considered view that the learned Judge of the MACT has given sound and cogent reasons while estimating the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the said finding of fact. In so far as the the contributory negligence is concerned, we see no error in the concurrent orders of the MACT and the High Court.

8. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras is quashed and set aside and the order of the MACT dated 30.10.2018 is confirmed.

9. The balance amount payable to the appellants in accordance with the directions of the MACT shall be paid by the Respondent within a period of three months from today.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.