Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer dated 16.9.2011 on two grounds. 2. His first contention is that as per the judgment of Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another : (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), no amount of compensation could have been awarded on the head of pain & suffering and hardship. His second contention is that Tribunal could not have held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the truck-driver, which was insured with the appellant insurance company. 3. Learned counsel sought to substantiate his submission that while in the present case, only widow has appeared as a witness PW1 Smt.Rameshwari and no other eye-witness has been produced and therefore claimant cannot be held to have discharged her onus to prove the negligence on the part of the truck-driver. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and perusing the award, I find that it has been proved that deceased himself was a truck-driver and he was there at the seen of accident in the capacity of a driver of the vehicle i.e. the truck. Widow asserted income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and that income of course was not accepted by the Tribunal but the learned Tribunal accepted the income of the deceased to be Rs.3200/- per month and adopted the multiplier of 13 at the age of 48 years and awarded Rs.4,99,200/- as the payable sum of compensation. Required standard of proof in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be more than what it is for a civil Court i.e. by preponderance of evidence. In my considered view, this Court has to take a pragmatic view of the matter considering that it was the claimant/widow, who was contesting the claim petition and has appeared in the witness box to prove accidental death of her husband. 5. In my considered view, this Court has to take a pragmatic view of the matter considering that it was the claimant/widow, who was contesting the claim petition and has appeared in the witness box to prove accidental death of her husband. 5. In so far as negligence part is concerned, upon a query made by the Court, learned counsel produced the copy of the first information report Exh.2, which shows that the FIR was lodged on the same day by the brother of the deceased, Balkishan and that the police after investigation found the negligence proved of truck-driver - Ashok Kumar/ respondent No.13 and filed challan against him. There is also an entry in the rojnamcha Exh.4, which proved the accident on the same day and police investigation Exh.3, site plan Exh.5 and seizure memo of truck Exh.6. Notice under Section 133/134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Exh.7/8 were issued, wherein the said respondent No.13 has been recorded as driver of the offending vehicle and mechanical inspection report Exh.9 and at the same time post-mortem report Exh.14. 6. There are other attending circumstances, which were all proved by numerous documents referred to supra. As it is, all what the Tribunal do in proceedings of a motor accident claims case is to make an enquiry, which is what has been provided for by Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore the technicalities of the procedure as regards the standard of proof, as may be applicable in an ordinary civil suit, may not be applied in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Supreme Court in the recent case in Ibrahim vs. Raju and Others : arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25372 of 2005 decided on 31.10.2011 while dealing with a motor accident claims case, wherein proper pleadings were not made and evidence with regard to claim of compensation was not adduced, observed that it will be reasonable to presume that due to financial incapacity, the claimant and his family could not avail the services of a competent lawyer in making a claim for adequate compensation. 7. Deceased was survived by the widow, eight daughters, one son and mother & father. There is no evidence on record as to the fact that any of the daughters were married. Therefore, they were all taken as dependents. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering to each of the claimants. 7. Deceased was survived by the widow, eight daughters, one son and mother & father. There is no evidence on record as to the fact that any of the daughters were married. Therefore, they were all taken as dependents. Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering to each of the claimants. In a matter like this, interference only on that ground, is not considered appropriate. 8. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.