G.S. PATEL, J.

1. 8th April 2007 was an ill-fated day in Dinesh Suresh Kadam’s short life of 22 years. At about 4:30 pm that Sunday afternoon, he was on his way to the township of Vasai to the north-west. He worked as a lift mechanic and his employer, Fly Tech Elevators at Ghodbunder Road in Thane, had asked him to attend to a call from a client in Vasai. He set off on a company-owned motorcycle. A fellow worker and employee of Fly Tech, Sachin Shantaram Lad, was riding pillion. The two were travelling north-west along Ghodbunder Road. Near the Gaimukh Shiv Mandir area, a stretch that runs roughly east-west, just south and to the west of Vasai creek, Dinesh’s motorcycle seems to have hit a patch of gravel or sand. It skidded. He lost control. The motorcycle hit the road divider. A bus leased to the Thane Municipal Corporation by Arex Travel & Logistics was, at that time, moving on the opposite side of the road. Here, the rival narratives diverge: the claimants say the motorcycle and Dinesh collided with the bus. The Thane Municipal Corporation and its insurer say Dinesh never hit the bus. The bus driver saw Dinesh’s motorcycle skid and topple, saw the two passengers on it fall and stopped the bus. This is the centre of the case. The motorcycle may have collided with the bus — the evidence on this is conflicting — but if it did, this was after Dinesh was thrown off it and injured. Dinesh was not, the Respondents say, injured on account of an collision with the bus. There was thus no accident "arising out of the use of" the bus.

2. Dinesh suffered grievous injuries. He was hospitalized at the Criticare Hospital in Thane. He died on 11th April 2007.

3. His parents and then unmarried sister filed this claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They claimed the accident was due to a collision between the motorcycle and the bus. They claimed compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the Thane Municipal Corporation, its bus lessor Arex Travel, and the insurer, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane dismissed the claim, and it did so with costs. Having heard Mr. Gokhale for the Appellants, Mr. Limaye for the Thane Municipal Corporation and Mr. Joshi for Oriental Insurance, I am not persuaded that the judgment of the MACT Thane calls for any interference except to the limited extent of dispensing with the award of costs. This family should not be further traumatized. Two parents lost their son. A sister lost her brother. Whatever be the outcome of their claim, it cannot be said to be frivolous or mischievous, nor an abuse of the process of the court. With the fairness for which they are known, both Mr. Limaye and Mr. Joshi instantly agree that the order of costs may be set aside.

5. Mr. Gokhale’s submission for the Appellants fall in two parts. First, he submits that the evidence is clear that the accident was due to a collision between the motorcycle and the bus, and that Dinesh’s injuries are attributable to, and a result of, that collision. It makes no difference, he says, if the bus was moving or at a standstill. Second, he submits that the entire argument on the question of Dinesh’s negligence, or contributory negligence, is wholly irrelevant. This was a claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act, and the claimants did not need to plead or prove negligence or default. When he died, Dinesh was earning Rs. 3,000/- a month, which brought him within the Rs. 40,000 per annum cap for Section 163-A to apply.

6. Mr. Limaye and Mr. Joshi join issue on the first submission. What they say is this: there was no accident involving the bus at all. The bus never hit Dinesh. The motorcycle hit a patch of sand, true; it skidded and its riders fell, also true; it hit the road divider and came before the bus, yes. But the bus driver, a witness before the MACT, is clear that he stopped his bus, and that the bus never struck Dinesh (or vice versa). It was the driver and the conductor who took the injured t