JUDGMENT I. Panduranga Rao, J. 1. The sole claimant, whose claim for recovery of damages under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts arising out of the appeal are briefly as follows: The appellant, who is an Advocate, was going on his motor-cycle on 31. 12.1983 at 5.00 p.m. with his companion Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Advocate travelling on the pillion. The claimant's contention is that respondent No. 1 who was driving the Jeep No. MPL 8125 suddenly turned to the right side without any indication after taking over the appellant, and that a cycle-rickshaw puller who was coming in the opposite side had suddenly turned his rickshaw to the right side resulting in the collision between the cycle-rickshaw and the appellant's motor-cycle. The. appellant immediately reported the matter to the Police Station Korba, which was registered as Cr. Case No. 51/84 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korba. 3. Alleging that on account of the accident, the claimant lost his one tooth and sustained injuries to his other teeth, which adversely affected his practice, he claimed compensation of Rs. 1.0 lakhs, impleading the driver of the Jeep, owner of the jeep and the Insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that there was no proof of rash driving of the Jeep by the driver; that the appellant failed to prove that the collision between the cycle-rickshaw and the motor-cycle was the result of rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by the first respondent; and that the injuries sustained by the appellant had not arisen out of an accident with the motor vehicle because admittedly the appellant was not hit or dashed by the Jeep. Challenging the said decision, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in thinking that there should be actual collision between the Jeep and the motor-cycle in order to enable the claimant to claim damages. Challenging the said decision, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in thinking that there should be actual collision between the Jeep and the motor-cycle in order to enable the claimant to claim damages. In support of his contention, he relied upon (he wording in Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which lays down that Claims Tribunals are constituted for adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of the motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. So also Section 140 provides for liability to pay compensation in the came of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The above provisions, therefore, provide for payment of compensation in the event of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, but do not restrict the payment of compensation only in cases where there is actual collision with the motor vehicle concerned. 5. The claimant examined himself as P.W. 4 and the pillion rider was examined at P.W. 3. Their evidence is to the effect that the Jeep driven by the first respondent suddenly turned to the right side without giving any indication, as a result of which the cycle-rickshaw puller had swerved his cycle-rickshaw to the right side all of a sudden, resulting in collision between the cycle-rickshaw and the motor-cycle of the claimant. Evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4 finds support from the evidence of R.W. 1, the Driver of the Jeep, who admits the accident, but, however, tried to contend that he did not drive the Jeep rashly at the relevant time, but on the other hand his Jeep was stationary. It is, however, elicited during his cross-examination that he has turned the Jeep to the right side without giving any indication. That statement negatives his earlier version that the Jeep was stationary. The evidence of R.W. 1 clearly corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4 that there was collision between the motor-cycle of the appellant and the cycle-rickshaw. 6. To prove about the loss of one tooth and that the entire set of teeth had become shaky, the claimant had examined the Doctor. The evidence of R.W. 1 clearly corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4 that there was collision between the motor-cycle of the appellant and the cycle-rickshaw. 6. To prove about the loss of one tooth and that the entire set of teeth had become shaky, the claimant had examined the Doctor. The facts spoken to by the P.W.3 are further corroborated from the First Information Report given at the earliest point of time, before the police mentioning as to the manner in which the accident had taken place. 7. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the cycle-rickshaw puller was not examined and his name was not noted in Ex. P/7, FIR. when the accident had taken place on a road, it may not be possible for the claimant to note the names of all the persons, who were present. The fact of collision between the cycle-rickshaw and the motor-cycle has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report. It is eliciteu from R.W. 1 that the Canteen Manager by name Bali was present, but he was not examined. 8. There are absolutely no grounds to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 & 4 contradicts each other because P.W. 4 deposed that the jeep had overtaken him whereas, P.W. 3 deposed that the jeep came in the opposite direction. But the evidence of R.W. 1 himself shows that the Jeep was being driven in the same direction in which the motor-cycle was going. The statement of R.W. 1 thereby corroborates the evidence of P.W. 4, the claimant. 9. The learned Counsel for the second respondent, relied upon the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Devi Sharma and Ors. 1981 ACJ 119 and Shanti Bai and Ors. v. The Principal Govindram Sakseria Technological Institute, Indore and Ors. 1972 ACJ 354 and argued that it is for the Insurance Company to plead and prove that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence. In this case R.W. 1 stated in the cross-examination that the driving licence was taken from him, but he does not know whether the licence was sent to the Insurance Company. 1972 ACJ 354 and argued that it is for the Insurance Company to plead and prove that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence. In this case R.W. 1 stated in the cross-examination that the driving licence was taken from him, but he does not know whether the licence was sent to the Insurance Company. Though the evidence of R.W. 1 shows that he was having the driving licence at the time of the accident, there is no proof that the driving licence was sent to the Insurance Company. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 10. Another objection raised to the maintainability of the claim application is that the Executive Director of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited cannot be sued for compensation. That defect is rectified by amending the name of the second respondent in the cause-title as Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, through: Its Executive Director. The technical objection about the maintainability of the claim application is, therefore, rectified by the above amendment. 11. The next question is about the quantum of compensation. The claim comprises of Rs. 25,000/- towards damages for loss of one tooth, Rs. 35,000/- for injuries to the other teeth and Rs. 50,000/- for mental shock for loss of tooth and mental pain and suffering. The above claims are undoubtedly quite exorbitant. But, taking into consideration the fact that loss of tooth had indeed caused disadvantage to the claimant, who is an Advocate by profession. I feel that damages of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable amount. For the injuries caused to the other teeth and mental pain and suffering, which the claimant had suffered, he is entitled for damages of Rs. 5,000/-. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards damages to the appellant payable by the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The appeal is dismissed as against the third party. There shall be no orders as to costs.