JUDGMENT : Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. A petition for seeking compensation for death of Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident is pending adjudication under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal. 2. Case of the claimants right from the very start is that Ashok Kumar had died in a motor vehicular accident when he was hit by car bearing registration No. HR-07K-3666 (hereinafter mentioned as the car) owned by Vikram, respondent No. 2 and driven by Samay Singh, respondent No. 1. When the evidence was being led by the respondents, the respondent insurance company came in possession of a discharge slip from the hospital where Ashok Kumar was treated, disclosing that it was not a case of death by accident as claimed by the claimants but actually, he had received injuries due to fall from the motorcycle where he was a pillion rider and no other vehicle was involved. 3. When an application was moved by the insurance company for recalling of the witnesses, namely, Ashok Kumar (PW1) and Dr. Anil Dhingra (PW4) to clarify the actual position as also with a purpose to put this and other related documents to them, the said application was dismissed vide order of 22.7.2014 of the Tribunal. Even application for additional evidence for examining concerned official from Fortis Hospital, Mohali in order to prove the said document alongwith other related documents, did not find favour with the Tribunal and was dismissed on 13.10.2014. Both these orders have been impugned in this revision petition. 4. Counsel for the insurance company, petitioner herein, has urged that it is a case of fraud because as per the document which became available to them later, the deceased had received injuries by fall from the motorcycle where he was a pillion rider and thus, it was not a case of motor vehicular accident made by any other vehicle but compensation has been claimed by contriving entirely a different story that he was hit by the car and had received injuries thereby in the said accident and had then died. 5. 5. It is claimed by the insurance company that when it is a case of own fault of deceased Ashok Kumar that he died due to jump from the motorcycle as a pillion rider and had received injuries therein and when there was no involvement of any other vehicle, liability of insurance company is not there and in the interest of justice, either the witnesses already examined by the insurance company should have been allowed to be further cross-examined by the insurance company or the concerned official from Fortis Hospital, Mohali should have been allowed to be called as a witness to prove document i.e. discharge summary of Ashok Kumar (Annexure P-1) to show that it was not a case of accidental death by hitting of motorcycle of the deceased by the car but was a case of receipt of injuries sustained due to own fault of the deceased. 6. No notice to the opposite side is being issued to avoid delay and further because no prejudice would be caused to the other party. 7. So far as question of recalling of the witnesses is concerned, once they have been cross-examined at length by the respondents in tune with the case established by them in their pleadings, there is no ground for recalling of the witnesses already examined. The impugned order of 22.7.2014 of the Tribunal is elaborate and well-written taking into consideration all the material facts and attending circumstances. It, thus, needs no interference. Revision petition against this order is dismissed. 8. So far as calling of a witness from Fortis Hospital, Mohali to prove documents of treatment and discharge of Ashok Kumar (since deceased), copy of which has already been placed by the insurance company on record with the Tribunal is concerned, there should not have been any hesitation with the Tribunal to allow such application because nature of the proceedings before the Tribunal is summary and proceedings are in the shape of an enquiry. In any case, aim of the Tribunal is to reach the truth and compensate the victims following the statutory mechanism provided under the Act for the purpose but if the claimants have concocted and contrived a story, the Tribunal should always make an endeavour to lift the veil so that the actual version emerges. Such exercise is also necessary for yet another reason. Such exercise is also necessary for yet another reason. Faith of the people in the administration of justice would definitely be reduced if unscrupulous litigants duping the courts are able to get relief by keeping the actual facts are hidden by them from the adjudicatory mechanism. 9. Thus, to uncover the truth as also to adjudicate the rival claims of the parties where genuineness of the plea of the claimants has been seriously questioned, order dated 13.10.2014 of the Tribunal impugned in this petition, cannot be sustained. 10. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, setting aside impugned order dated 13.10.2014 of the Tribunal and allowing the application of the insurance company, petitioner herein, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to summon the concerned official of Fortis Hospital, Mohali to produce the record of death of Ashok Kumar as detailed and described in discharge report (Annexure P-1) and with documents and material connected therewith for proving the same by the insurance company. However, only one opportunity would be provided to the insurance company to produce its evidence on its own responsibility though help of the Tribunal in summoning the concerned witnesses Dasti may be taken. It is made clear that the Tribunal would conclude adjudication of the matter finally within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.