Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant against the impugned Award dated 11.11.1997, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant in the absence of any pleading to the effect that in order to prove the factum of accident, the claimant manufactured any document. Moreover, neither any issue was framed, nor any evidence was led, to this effect. Therefore, the finding could not have been returned by the learned Tribunal. It is further contended that the accident has been admitted by the insurance company as the issue regarding driving licence has been decided in favour of the appellant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that the accident has been denied consistently and the initial burden to prove this fact was on the appellant, which he has failed to discharge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that there was no pleading on behalf of the respondents disputing the factum of accident is concerned, a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2, insurance company reveals that it has specifically taken a stand that the claim petition is false and frivolous and has been filed in collusion with respondent No.1. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the claimant-appellant, Harpal Singh, respondent No.1Sucha Singh and PW2, Om Parkash, the alleged eyewitness, are known to each other prior to the date of the accident. Respondent No.1, Sucha Singh, did not appear in the witness box, knowing fully well that the vehicle in question was insured and there was no possibility of the award having been passed against him. Thus, he wanted to ensure that the testimony of the claimant goes unrebutted. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that no accident, as projected by the appellant, took place and thus, compensation was rightly denied to him. Dismissed.