JUDGMENT : C.S.P. Singh, J.—This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs arising out of a suit for compensation of Rs. 35,000/- filed against the Defendant on 14.2.1964. Panna Lal deceased was driving a Farguson tractor on Shamli-Shahdara road in the district of Muzaffarnagar. Mr. Krishna was accompanying him at that time. The Plaintiff's case is that the tractor was being driven by Panna Lal deceased at a normal speed of 8 miles per hour and when it reached near Village Lilon, a Roadways Bus No. USL-9275 belonging to the defendant No. 1 which was being driven by Dhara Singh defendant No. 2, came from the opposite direction at a high speed, and dashed against the tractor, as a result of which Panna Lal deceased sustained grievous injuries and the tractor, which was being driven by him, was irreparably damaged. The front part of the tractor rammed into the bus and was broken. The accident was the direct result of the rash and negligent driving of bus by Dhara Singh, the Defendant No. 2. The accident could have easily been avoided had the driver of the bus exercised due care and skill, while driving the vehicle. Mr. Krishna was also injured in the collision. Defendant No. 2 did not care to provide medical aid to the injured, with the result that all chances of survival of Panna Lal were set at naught. Panna Lal was subsequently removed to the Civil Hospital, Shamli, where he died as a result of the injuries. The suit was filed by Bishamber Sahai, grand father of the deceased, Mr. Duraika Das and Mrs. Bhagwati Devi, the parents, and Mrs. Urmila Devi, his widow. The Plaintiffs further alleged that due to the death of Panna Lal the yield of their agriculture farm, which he had been looking after, has been reduced by not less than Rs. 12,000/- per year. Mrs. Urmila, the wife of the deceased, suffered both mentally and physically and she was left with none to provide her subsistence. The deceased was a very healthy young man of about 33 years of age at the time of his death and had a long expectancy of life. The death of the deceased caused a loss of not less than Rs. 40,000/- but claim was being made for Rs. 35,000/- only. The deceased was a very healthy young man of about 33 years of age at the time of his death and had a long expectancy of life. The death of the deceased caused a loss of not less than Rs. 40,000/- but claim was being made for Rs. 35,000/- only. The State of Uttar Pradesh was vicariously liable in as much as Dhara Singh Defendant No. 2 was in its employment at the time of accident. 2. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to go into details of the various defences taken up by the Defendants, inasmuch as the findings recorded on those defences against the Respondents have not been seriously challenged in the appeal. The main defence of the Defendants was that the accident had occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased Panna Lal himself and that at the time when the accident took place he was in an intoxicated condition. It was asserted that Dhara Singh, defendant No. 2, made every attempt to avoid the accident but he could not do so as Panna Lal diverted the tractor towards east when he was only 4 or 5 yards away from the bus and the collision occurred inspite of best efforts on the part of Defendant No. 2, Dhara Singh, to stop the vehicle. 3. The trial court found that the theory of intoxication setup by the Defendants had not been made out and further that intoxication was not the immediate cause of the accident. In arriving at this conclusion it referred to a number of circumstances and the evidence of Dr. V.D. Agarwal (P.W.2), who carried out the autopsy on the dead body of Panna Lal. The Dr. V.D. Agarwal has stated that no trace of alcohol were found in the internal parts of the body at the time of postmortem examination, This being so we are of the view that the trial court rightly held that the plea of the Defendants that the accident was directly caused on account of Panna Lal being intoxicated is not proved. The trial court however, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place not due to the rash and negligent driving of Dhara Singh, Defendants No. 2, but due to the negligent and rash driving on the part of Panna Lal deceased who had no licence or experience for driving the tractor. The trial court however, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place not due to the rash and negligent driving of Dhara Singh, Defendants No. 2, but due to the negligent and rash driving on the part of Panna Lal deceased who had no licence or experience for driving the tractor. It also held that the Plaintiffs other than Mrs. Urmila Devi, Plaintiff No. 4, the wife of deceased, did not have any cause of action for filing the suit. As regard Mrs. Urmila, Plaintiff No. 4, it held that in case Panna Lal himself had not been responsible for the accident, she would have been entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the loss of life of her husband. In view of the finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of Panna Lal deceased the suit was dismissed. All the four Plaintiff have filed this appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants stated that it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the other Plaintiffs except Mrs. Urmila Devi were entitled to sue or receive the compensation for the death of Panna Lal. This being so, we will consider the appeal qua the right of Mrs. Urmila Devi for being compensated for the death of her deceased husband Panna Lal. Counsel for the Appellants has urged that the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs in support of their case to establish that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of Defendant No. 2, Dhara Singh, was erroneously disbelieved by the trial court. In the alternative it has been contended that the evidence adduced on behalf of the Defendants, even if believed, clearly established that the accident was partly due to the negligence of Dhara Singh, Defendant No. 2, and this being so the only question that survives is regards the quantum of compensation claimable by the Appellants. 5. There can be no gain saying the fact that at the time when the incident took place the presence of deceased Panna Lal, injured Shri Krishna (P.W. 1) and Dhara Singh, driver of the bus (P.W. 9), cannot be doubted. 5. There can be no gain saying the fact that at the time when the incident took place the presence of deceased Panna Lal, injured Shri Krishna (P.W. 1) and Dhara Singh, driver of the bus (P.W. 9), cannot be doubted. Dhara Singh (P.W. 9), the driver of the bus, has stated in his examination in chief that he started from Delhi at about 2.0'clock in the afternoon alongwith Sant Lal, the conductor of the bus. When he was about 2 or 3 furlongs from village Lilon, he saw a Tractor coming from opposite direction at a high speed on the wrong side of the road. He was driving the bus at a speed of 18 or "0 miles per hour at that time. On seeing the tractor coming on the wrong side, he blew the horn and lowered the speed. On this the tractor swerved to the west, which was the wrong side. When it was 4 or 5 yards from the bus the tractor swerved towards east. On this he braked and turned the bus towards the right to avoid the accident. No sooner he had swerved towards east, the right side of the tractor hit the left side of the bus at the place where the left light was fitted. The tractor over turned and disintegrated into two parts. The front portion of the tractor was carried away by the bus, and he could stop the bus only after crossing the entire road and traversing 4 or 5 yards more towards the un-metalled side of the road. The left side of the bus and the fuel tank were damaged as a result of the accident. The fuel tank was also ruptured. He stated that the bus, which he was driving, was of Leyland make, and that if full brakes are applied to this make of vehicle when it is running at 8 or 9 miles speed it will stop after converting 7 or 8 yards. In the cross-examinations he stated that he saw the tractor from a distance of 2 1/2-3 furlongs and at that time the tractor was coming in the middle of the road. He did not blow the horn at that time, When the distance between his vehicle and the tractor was one furlong, he started blowing the horn. In the cross-examinations he stated that he saw the tractor from a distance of 2 1/2-3 furlongs and at that time the tractor was coming in the middle of the road. He did not blow the horn at that time, When the distance between his vehicle and the tractor was one furlong, he started blowing the horn. Even then the tractor was being driven on the west side of the road, which was the wrong side. The tractor driver did not care to take the vehicle on the east side, which was his correct side. On the contrary, the tractor driver put one side of the tractor on the western patri of the road. This happened when the distance between the two vehicles was 20 or 24 yards. He continued driving the bus on the western side. He had put the vehicle from top gear to the third gear when he was a furlong away but even then there had been no diminution in the speed. He had decreased the speed when he was only 20 to 25 yards from the tractor. Although his foot was on the brake when the distance between the two vehicles was 25 yards, yet he had not applied brakes till he reached a distance of about 4 or 5 yards from the tractor. He further stated that the speed of the bus when he was about 25 yards away from the tractor was 12 to 14 miles per hour and that it had decreased by about 2 miles before the accident occurred. It was also admitted by him that visibility was absolutely clear. To a question in the cross-examination as to why he had not swerved the bus to the west, it was stated by him that it was due to the reason that there was a dried stump at a distance of about 4 or 5 yards and a ditch to the west. He had swerved the vehicle towards east to avoid any injury to the passengers of the bus. He had swerved the vehicle towards east to avoid any injury to the passengers of the bus. It is amply clear from the testimony of this witness that although he had seen the tractor being driven on the wrong side from a distance of about 2 or 3 furlongs and had noticed the fact that the tractor was not being taken to the east patri, the correct side for the tractor, no attempt was made by him to stop the bus. The first time when he applied the brakes was when the tractor was at a distance of about 4 or 5 yards. In-as-much as Dhara Singh was aware of the fact that the vehicle which he was driving would stop at a distance of not less than 7 or 8 yards if full brakes were applied, it was an imprudent and negligent act on his part not to have applied the brakes of the bus from a longer distance and waited for the tractor to come in the narrow range of 4 or 5 yards when it was impossible to stop the bus. The reason given by Dhara Singh for taking the bus on the western patri does not appear to be relevant. When he saw that the tractor was not changing its course, had he exercised due care and caution, he could have easily ensured not only the safety of the passengers of the bus but also of the driver of the tractor by simply stopping the bus. The mere fact that the tractor was being driven on the wrong side, comparatively at a high speed as deposed by this witness as also by other witness produced by the Defendants, did not absolve Dhara Singh from taking sufficient caution to avoid the accident. The road being clear and visible, we are of the view that Dhara Singh was negligent in not stopping the bus well before the place where the accident took place. We are also of the view that the statement of Dhara Singh that he had slowed down the bus and that the bus was being driven at a modest speed of 18 or 20 miles per hour is not correct. We are also of the view that the statement of Dhara Singh that he had slowed down the bus and that the bus was being driven at a modest speed of 18 or 20 miles per hour is not correct. The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of this witness on the point that he had reduced the speed of the vehicle, on account of the fact that he did not say so in the First Information Report lodged at the Police station shortly after the accident. The statement of Dhara Singh that he had put the vehicle from top to third gear so as to reduce the speed does not appear to be true, in-as-much as he has admitted that the speed of the bus did not go down even after the gear had been changed. It is common knowledge that a vehicle being put from a higher gear to lower gear the speed diminishes. This shows that no attempt was made by Dhara Singh to reduce the speed of the vehicle by the change of the gear. It is also clear that the speed of the vehicle did not go down even though Dhara Singh stated that he had removed his feet from the accelerator paddle. The very fact that Dhara Singh has admitted that the speed of the vehicle did not go down inspite of the fact that he had changed the gears and removed pressure from the accelerator paddle shows the falsehood of the latter two statements, that is changing of the gears and removing pressure from the accelerator paddle. The other circumstances of the case also go to indicate that the speed of the bus was quite considerable when the collision took place. Exts. 17 to 21 are the photographs of the two vehicles taken shortly after the collision. These photographs show that, what has been stated by Dhara Singh, that the tractor had disintegrated into two parts as a result of the impact. The front portion of the tractor was dragged away by the bus and that the bus stopped only after crossing the entire paved road and after having traversed a distance of 4 or 5 yards in the Kachcha. The fuel tank of the bus was ruptured. The front portion of the tractor was dragged away by the bus and that the bus stopped only after crossing the entire paved road and after having traversed a distance of 4 or 5 yards in the Kachcha. The fuel tank of the bus was ruptured. Such a colossal damaged to the tractor could occur only in case the speed of the bus was much more than the modest 18 to 20 miles per hour deposed by Dhara Singh. Sant Lal (D.W. 11), the conductor of the bus, is also another witness whose presence does not admit of much doubt. He too has stated that the tractor was visible from a considerable distance and that it was coming on the wrong side and not taking the right side inspite of repeated horns being given by Dhara Singh, the driver of the bus. He too has stated that the tractor turned towards east only when the distance between the two vehicles was 4 yards. The damage to the tractor and the bus described by Dhara Singh (D.W. 9) have been corroborated by this witness. It is noteworthy that this witness too does not state that Dhara Singh, the driver of the bus, applied full brakes before the distance between the two vehicle had narrowed down to 4 or 5 yards. We are of the view that the statements of these two witness, who have been produced on behalf of the defence, and who were admittedly present at the time of the accident, clearly establish negligence on the part of Dhara Singh, the driver of the bus, which led to the fatal accident. 6. The aforesaid conclusion brings us to the question of the quantum of compensation for in first appeal No. 196 of 1967, decided on 22.2.1974, a Division Bench of this Court after review of the number of authorities, has taken the view that in case an accident is caused partly due to the negligence of the Defendant, the latter cannot be absolved to his liability to pay damages only on the ground that the deceased had also contributed to the accident by his own negligence. We have purposely avoided commenting upon the evidence of the other defence witnesses for we are of the view that the other five witnesses produced on behalf of the Defendants cannot add or subtract to the evidence of Dhara Singh, driver and Sant Lal, conductor. Although in view of this conclusion it is not necessary to refer to the evidence adduced on behalf of the Plaintiffs, yet it is necessary to point out here, that in view of the evidence led on behalf of the Defendants it is not possible to reject the evidence of the Plaintiffs in its totality. The Plaintiff's case that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of Dhara Singh stands established by the testimony of Dhara Singh and Sant Lal themselves, who were the driver and conductor of the bus respectively. This being so the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages from the Respondents. 7. Now coming to the question of quantum of damages, the Plaintiffs had claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per year for the remaining life time of Panna Lal. Panna Lal as has been seen above was about 33 years of age at the time of his death considering the increased longevity in the present days on account of the advanced medical facilities and better sanitary conditions, it would be appropriate to fix the life span of Panna Lal at 60 year that is 27 years more. In case damages are calculated on the basis of Rs. 12,000/- per year, that would work out to Rs. 3,24,000/-. This, however, appears to be and exaggerated amount and the Plaintiffs themselves were aware of this, inasmuch as they claimed an amount of Rs. 35,000/-. Considering the fact that the counsel for the Appellants has confined the appeal only qua the claim of Mrs. Urmila, widow of the deceased Panna Lal, apart from any mental anguish that she might have suffered, the immediate consequence of the death of her husband was that there was no one to look after the property of the deceased Panna Lal. It has come in evidence that the family had separated and Panna Lal deceased was supervising his own farm and looking after his other immovable properties. Mrs. Urmila being a widow cannot possibly be expected to look after these properties of her own and carry on the work of farming. It has come in evidence that the family had separated and Panna Lal deceased was supervising his own farm and looking after his other immovable properties. Mrs. Urmila being a widow cannot possibly be expected to look after these properties of her own and carry on the work of farming. This being so, she will have to engage some one to look after her properties and supervise the work of the farm. Considering the extent of the properties and the prevailing wages, we think that she would incur expenses of at least Rs. 200/- per month, that is Rs. 2400/- per year. Thus in a period of 27 years she will have to incur expenses of Rs. 64,800/-. Looking at the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Panna Lal was also at fault and he also contributed to the accident, which led to the loss of his life. The Plaintiff as such cannot be awarded full compensation and would in the circumstances of the case be entitled to a moiety thereof. This being so we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 32,000/- in round figures would be the appropriate compensation and will meet the ends of justice in this case. 8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal of Plaintiff Appellant No. 4, Mrs. Urmila, and set aside the judgment and decree of the court below, in so far as her claim is concerned, and decree her suit for an amount of Rs. 32,000/- with costs through out against the Defendants with pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 6i% per annum. 9. The appeal of other Appellants fails and is dismissed, but there would be no order for costs.