( 1 ) THE owner of the truck the driver and the concerned insurance company have filed this appeal against the award of the learned Claims Tribunal awarding an amount of Rs. 45975/by way of damages to the widow respondent No. 1 and the three minor sons-respondents 5 to 7. Respondents 2 and 3 were the major sons and respondent No. 4 was the married daughter who were not dependents and who have not raised any dispute for inter-se apportionment of the compensation amount. Even before us respondents 2 to 4 have not made any grievance and therefore the case has entirely proceeded on the footing that the amount is to be awarded under both the relevant secs. 1a and 2 as regards the loss of dependency benefit and the loss to the estate only to those four respondents the widow and the three minor sons. The truck of the appellants 1 and 2 MRT 4756 had dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased Mahmadmiya Mohamed Hussein on the outskirts of the Fatehpur village on August 7 1966 The concerned truck was coming from Ahmedabad side and was going to Bavla on the Ahmedabad-Bavla Road from east to west; while the deceaseds scooter with witness Jambu Nazir ex. 99 on the pillion was at that time going from Dholka to Ahmedabad. It is an admitted fact even by the driver of the truck Tukaram Ramji Ex. 106 that it was a rainy day and even at the time of the incident at about 10. 0 P. M. it was actually drizzling. It was a dark night. Admittedly the truck had no wipers as admitted even by the driver. There is hardly any substance in his plea that the wind-screen glass which was in two parts had been separated so that he could peep through. The Panchnama Ex. 63 discloses that even though the wind-screen consisted of two separate glasses they were closed. Besides in that case the visibility would be all the more obstructed. Even the statutory requirement of 1969 rules under rule 147 provides for the wipers. The panchnama Ex. 63 which has been properly proved disclosed marks of collision. Below the right head light of the truck there was a scratch and black rubber was brushed. There was a scratch also on the right mudguard. The right handle of the scooter was damaged to the extent of Rs. 200. 00. This gives a complete answer to the plea of the driver that the scooter had slipped into the wheel of the truck. In view of the impact of collision as evidenced by the panchnama Ex. 63 the learned Claims Tribunal rightly disbelieved this theory. The Panchnama Ex. 63 discloses that it was 12 ft wide asphalt road with 8 ft. metal road on two sides. The tyre marks revealed that the driver must have applied the brake at a distance of about 30 ft. and the truck had gone about 55 ft. The scooter was only 3 1/2 ft. from the road on its correct side. It was therefore apparent from the Panchnama Ex. 63 that the driver was on the extreme wrong side. As he had no wiper and he was taking the truck while it was actually drizzling on the dark night he must have occupied large pace on the road by going on the wrong side. As soon as he saw the scooter he had swerved the vehicle and that is why he came right across the road on the other-side. Mr. Vakil had vehemently argued that -. there was some evidence to show that the scooter must have slipped in and he tried to rely on the first police statement of Jambu Nazir who was on the pillion. The learned Claims Tribunal had ignored the main fact that this police statement could go in evidence only as a statement recorded by the P. S. I. and when the P. S. I. Ladhubha Ex. 66 was not asked a single question in this connection. The police statement was however obviously wrongly exhibited. The learned Claims Tribunal was right in observing that Jambus statement might not have been correctly recorded because Jambu was not speaking Gujarati language and therefore the correct version was in the second statement. In any event in view of the marks of collision this slipping theory can hardly be accepted. Therefore these