J.R. Mudholkar, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Gujarat and arises out of a suit for damages instituted by the legal representatives of one Gokaldas. The said Gokaldas was a passenger in a stage carriage bus belonging to the Appellant. We will hereafter refer to this bus as the green bus. The bus was on its way from Jamnagar to Bhanvad. A stage carriage passenger bus belonging to the second Respondent, the Nawanagar Transport Industries Ltd., Jamnagar, was on its way to Jamnagar from the direction of Bhanvad. We shall call this bus the red bus. Near a village named Dhangad which is between Jamnagar and Bhanvad the sides of the two buses grazed each other. 2 According to the Appellant, however, it was the bonnet of the red bus which dashed against the right side of the green bus. It is common ground that Gokaldas was occupying a seat in the green bus on the same side which came in contact with the bonnet of the red bus and received injuries on the right arm and severe injuries on the head which resulted in almost instantaneous death. Respondents 1 (i) to 1 (vi) who are the widow and children of Gokaldas instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, against the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 2 and the drivers of the two buses claiming Rs. 60,000 as damages. The claim was denied by the Appellant as well as by the second Respondent and the drivers of the two buses The ground on which the claim was based was that the drivers of both the buses were negligent inasmuch as they were driving the buses at excessive speeds with the result that there was collision between the two buses due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. They also contended that had the drivers observed ordinary precaution they would have left some space between their respective vehicles while passing each other, but as they did not do so the collision between the two vehicles became inevitable. They assessed the damages at Rs. 60,000/ - upon the basis that Gokaldas earned on an average an income of Rs. 500 to Rs. 600 p.m., that his age at the time of the accident was 47 years, that he would thus have continued to earn this income and maintain his dependants for at least 10 more years and would thus have earned at least Rs. 60.000 during this period. The claim was denied by the Appellant as well as the second Respondent. According to the Appellant both the buses were proceeding at moderate speeds and that at any rate the Appellant's driver was not driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner. According to both the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 Gokaldas was guilty of contributory negligence apparently because he had put out his head and arm and it is because of this that he sustained injuries which resulted in his death. Both the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 denied that the income of Gokaldas was as alleged by the dependants of Gokaldas. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jamnagar, upon the ground that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. On appeal, the High Court held that the accident was due to the negligence of the Appellant and that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence. The High Court assessed the damages at Rs. 25,( 00/ - and awarded a decree to the dependants of Gokaldas against the Appellant and the driver of the Appellant's bus. The view taken by the High Court was that the driver of the bus of Respondent No. 2 was not guilty of any rash and negligent act but it was only the driver of the Appellant's bus, that is the green bus who drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The High Court negatived the plea in defence taken by the Appellant that Gokaldas was guilty of contributory negligence. It may be mentioned here that after the decree was made by the High Court the dependants of Gokaldas, that is Respondents l(i) to 1 (vi), assigned their decrial rights in favour of Shah Damodar Amichand and Sons and this firm was thereafter joined as Respondent No 2 to the appeal. 3. We may say at the outset that though the learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Appellant had challenged the amount of damages he did not press the point further when we indicated to him that the finding of the High Court is supported by adequate evidence. His other grounds of attack are that the driver of neither bus was guilty of negligence or alternatively that the driver of the green bus was not guilty of negligence ; that even if he were found to have been negligent the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and that, therefore, the dependants of the deceased were not entitled to any damages. 4. We have been taken through the evidence adduced by the parties and we have no doubt that the Courts below were right in holding that the accident was due to negligence The question is whether the drivers of both the green bus and the red bus were negligent or whether the driver of the green bus alone was negligent. It is not disputed before us that the road is straight over long stretches from the place of the accident in both directions. The evidence clearly shows that the passengers in each of the buses could see the other bus coming from a considerable time before the collision occurred. It is also clear that at the place of the accident the road is not more than 19 feet in width and that on the left side of the green bus there are berry trees or shrubs and on the left side of the red bus there is a ditch or a pit about 4' in depth. It is also clear from the panchnama and the evidence of panch witnesses that they saw the treads left by the wheels of each vehicle along the extreme left of the road. Yet it is a fact that a collision occurred. It would appear that the maximum breadth of each bus was a little over 8 feet. If, therefore, each of these buses was running at a speed at which it could be properly kept under control no collision could have occurred. Yet it did occur. Learned Solicitor General points out that from the marks left on the right side of the green bus it is clear that it is the bonnet of the red bus which collided against the sides of the green bus that this could have happened only because the driver of the red bus swerved his vehicle slightly to the right after two -thirds of each vehicle had passed the other and that, therefore, it is the driver of the red bus who must be held guilty of negligence. On the other hand, the evidence of the driver of the red bus is to the effect that just at the moment of the collision the green bus having passed two -thirds of the length of the red bus, swerved to the left, that because of that the rear portion of the green bus had dashed into the bonnet of the red bus and thus there was a collision between them. Unfortunately, however, neither the Appellant nor the second Respondent has clearly pleaded that either bus had swerved to some extent. It is apparently because of the absence of pleadings on the point that the material bearing on the question as to which bus swerved is very slender. We find it therefore, difficult to say that only the driver of one of the buses was negligent while that of the other was not. One thing, however, is certain that both the buses where trying to pass each other at a point where the road is admittedly narrow, at a speed at which the drivers were unable to exercise full control over their vehicles. It is because of this that the accident occurred and, therefore, the only reasonable conclusion which could be arrived at on the evidence is that the drivers of both the buses were negligent. 5. Now, as to contributory negligence, there seems to be ample material on record including the finding of fairly large quantities of blood on the road from which an inference would follow that an arm or a part of it, of Gokaldas was protruding from the window of the bus. In so far as the head is concerned, the independent evidence, that is, of the passengers traveling in the two buses, however, shows that Gokaldas had not put his head outside the bus. No doubt, the driver, the cleaner and the conductor of the green bus have said that Gokaldas had put out his head. They are also supported in this by Chagan Narsing who was also a passenger in the green bus. In so far as the driver and the conductor were concerned it is sufficient to point out that as the deceased was sitting at the rear of the bus and these two persons at the front, it was not possible for either of them to see where the head of the deceased was at the time of the collision. In so far as the cleaner is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that when he was examined as a prosecution witness in a criminal case against the driver of the green bus he did not say that the head of the deceased was outside the bus at the time of the accident. In so far as Chagan is concerned it is obvious that he is untrustworthy. In his cross -examination on behalf of the Plaintiff, he stated categorically that even in the criminal case he had deposed that the deceased was leaning out at the time of the accident. A certified copy of his evidence in that case has been placed on record and it shows that he had stated categorically that the deceased was sitting near a small bar and received head injuries after the collision because his head dashed against that bar. This statement negatives the possibility of the deceased leaning out of the bus at the time of the accident. It is true that in addition there is the evidence of one of the persons traveling in the red bus to the effect that he saw a person leaning out of the green bus just before the accident. Apart from the fact that he has not identified the head to be that of the deceased we find it extremely improbable that any one traveling in the red bus would have been able to see what the witness says he saw since the two buses passed each other at high speed. Considering the evidence as a whole, therefore, we are far from being satisfied that the deceased received the head injuries because he had put his head out of the window of the bus. In the circumstances, therefore, we hold that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence. 6. That being so, the legal representatives of the deceased are clearly entitled to the damages as assessed by the High Court. In our opinion, however, as the accident was caused by the negligence of the drivers of both the buses the High Court should have granted the decree against the Respondent No. 2 as well as the Appellant. The drivers of both the buses having been equally responsible for the accident, the owners of the buses driven by each of them would be equally liable to pay damages to the dependants of the deceased. We accordingly modify the decree passed by the High Court by making the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 and the drivers of their respective buses liable to pay the decrial amount with costs. Subject to this modification, we dismiss the appeal and direct the Appellant to pay costs of Respondent No. 5. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 will bear their own costs. No separate costs are allowable to Respondents Nos. l(i) to i(iv) because they have transferred their claim to Respondent No. 5.;