Judgment :- 1. The insurer/second respondent in MCOP No. 3 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Gudiyatham, is the appellant in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Being aggrieved by the award, dated 18.03.2003, passed in MCOP No. 3 of 2000 awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the above appeal has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimants have not proved by adducing acceptable evidence that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Jayan. He further submitted that Ex. P-5-Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Panchayat President could not be relied upon as the Panchayat President is not a competent authority to issue the legal heir certificate. He further submitted that by examining R.W.3, the revenue Divisional officer, the appellant has proved that the claimants are not the parents of the deceased Jayan and they are not the legal heirs entitled to claim the compensation, but the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the testimony of the Revenue Divisional officer, R.W.3; the reasons recorded by the Tribunal for rejecting the evidence of R.W.3 cannot be sustained. Except the said submissions, no other submissions have been made. 4. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 illiterates belonging to the scavenger community; they have obtained Ex.P-5-Legal Heir Certificate from the Panchayat President. He further submitted that in Ex.A-2-charge sheet filed by the Police, it has been clearly stated that the deceased, Jayan, is the son of Pukkaiah/the second respondent herein. He further submitted that the inquest would have been conducted on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Panchayatdhars only, the Investigating officer would have ascertained the name of the father of the deceased and therefore it cannot be assailed. He further submitted that the inquest would have been conducted on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Panchayatdhars only, the Investigating officer would have ascertained the name of the father of the deceased and therefore it cannot be assailed. He further submitted that when P.W.3, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has stated that the deceased is not the son of the respondents 1 and 2 and he has failed to furnish the details of the names of the parents of the deceased and P.W.3 has also not stated that the Village Administrative Officer gave any certificate stating that respondents 1 and 2 are not the parents of the deceased, Jayan; in fact, the Village Administration Officer has also not furnished any details to R.W.3 regarding the details of the names etc., of the parents of the deceased Jayan. He further submitted that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. 5. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, has asserted that the respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Jayan and in support of that has produced Ex. P-5-Certificate issued by the Panchayat President. When it has been suggested that she is not the mother of the deceased, Jayan, but nothing has been elicited during the course of cross-examination to discredit her evidence. In Ex.A-2 charge sheet, the father’s name of the deceased Jayan has been mentioned as Pukkaiah, which corroborates the testimony of P.W.1. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, while R.W.3 has deposed that the respondents 1 and 2 are not the parents of the deceased Jayan, he had not made any enquiries to ascertain the correct names of the parents of the deceased Jayan. He has also not stated that the Village Administrative Officer informed him about the correct names and addresses of the Parents of the deceased Jayan. If really the R.W.3 had made a through enquiry to ascertain the correct names and addresses of the deceased Jayan, he could have furnished the correct details before the Tribunal. The particulars furnished by the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.W.3, are incomplete and therefore the Tribunal is right in not relying upon the evidence of R.W.3. 8. If really the R.W.3 had made a through enquiry to ascertain the correct names and addresses of the deceased Jayan, he could have furnished the correct details before the Tribunal. The particulars furnished by the Revenue Divisional Officer, R.W.3, are incomplete and therefore the Tribunal is right in not relying upon the evidence of R.W.3. 8. The respondents 1 and 2, being illiterates and belonging to the lower strata of the society, cannot be expected to know the legal niceties and as per the local custom, they have obtained the certificate from the Panchayat President and they have produced the same. Ex.P-5 support from Ex.R-2-charge sheet. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interface with the findings of the Tribunal passed in MCOP No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Gudiyatham. This Court is unable to accept the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs.