Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-This special appeal, under Section 18 of the Rajashan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed by the non-claimant appellant, the United India Insurance Company Limited (for short, the appellant Company,) against the Judgment , dated 211.1997, of the learned Single Judge, in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.495/1995; under the impugned Judgment the learned Single Judge enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 11,10,796/-from that of Rupees five lacs awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Claim Case No.650/1992. 2. The facts of the case, in brief , are that on 27.1992 when Ramdhan (since deceased) was going on motorcycle towards Laxmi Mandir Cinema Hall, Jaipur, one truck bearing number RJ-14-G-0221, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, struck the motorcycle of the deceased; he was crushed and died on the spot. The appellant Company, undisputedly, insured the offending truck. The claimant respondents are the widow, children, mother of the deceased; they filed the claim petition for compensation against the driver, owner and the insurer of the Truck, before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal under its award awarded the amount of compensation aforesaid. On the amount of compensation, the learned Tribunal further ordered for payment of interest by the appellant Company at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant Company did not challenge the award of the learned Tribunal before the learned Single Judge. 3. The claimant respondents filed the aforesaid miscellaneous appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned Single Judge under the impugned Judgment partly allowed the appeal of the claimant respondents and enhanced the amount of compensation as indicated above. Hence this special appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant Company vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased double of his existing income for the purpose of determination of the compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants. 5. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant Company is that the amount of pensionary benefits received by the widow of the deceased ought to have been deducted from the amount of the economic dependency of the family of the deceased by the learned Single Judge. 5. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant Company is that the amount of pensionary benefits received by the widow of the deceased ought to have been deducted from the amount of the economic dependency of the family of the deceased by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel for the appellant Company submitted that on the amount of compensation the income-tax was payable and rightly the learned Tribunal has deducted Rs.60,500/-under this head. 6. Lastly it is contended that the award of interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12% per annum is highly excessive. 7. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the claimant respondents supported the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant Company, it appears, has made the first contention, may be under the erroneous impression that the deceased was not in a permanent employee. From the facts come on the record and more particularly the document available on the record of the miscellaneous appeal and marked as Exhibit-6 in red pencil, we find that deceased Ramdhan was Upper Division Clerk in the Government Secretariat. Exhibit-6 is the last pay certificate of the deceased for the period from 27.1992 till the date of his death. It is not gainsay that after 27.1992 the pay of the Government employees has virtually become two-and-half time. It is bound to increase, leaving apart the fact that after regular intervals the pay commission is constituted, in addition thereto, the government servant gets yearly increment as well as periodical increase of dearness allowance. 10. The learned Single Judge, in the facts of this case, has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sussamma Thomas (1994 ACJ 1); therein the Honble Supreme Court has taken the future prospects of increase in the income of a Government servant in the permanent service for determination of the compensation, as double of the income of the deceased on the date of the accident. 11. The deduction of the pension amount, which the widow would have received as family pension, by the learned Tribunal is ex facie erroneous. 11. The deduction of the pension amount, which the widow would have received as family pension, by the learned Tribunal is ex facie erroneous. The pensionary benefits would have been available to the widow of the deceased Government servant irrespective of the fact whether he died in the accident or natural death and it has no relevance to the cause of death of the deceased. Thus it cannot be taken a benefit to the extent to deduct the same from the monthly contribution of the deceased making to the family. Our this view is fortified by the decision of the Honble Apex Court in N. Sivammal and others vs. M.D., Pandian Roadways Corporation & Another, 1985 (1) ACC 47. We do not find any error in the approach and decision of the learned Single Judge not to deduct the amount of family pension, which the widow of the deceased would have been receiving. 12. As regards to the deduction made by the learned Tribunal of the amount of income-tax from the amount of compensation the same of the Income-tax Department, suffice it to say that the appellant Company has not produced any evidence before the learned Tribunal to show that the deceased was having the taxable income. From the pay slip, which has been produced on the record before the learned Single Judge of the month in which the deceased died, it nowhere transpires that the deceased was having the taxable income. The income tax on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants on the death of their bread earner, leaving apart the question whether it is payable or not, in the absence of any evidence that the income of the deceased was taxable, the deduction made under the head aforesaid by the learned Tribunal, has rightly been not accepted by the learned Single Judge. 13. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant Company re the award of interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation has no merit and substance. The Appellant Company did not challenge that part of the award of the learned Tribunal thereby it has awarded the interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant respondents, by filing appeal or cross-objection. The Appellant Company did not challenge that part of the award of the learned Tribunal thereby it has awarded the interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant respondents, by filing appeal or cross-objection. Where the appellant Company has not challenged this part of the award before the learned Single Judge, it is not open to it to challenge the same in the special appeal. That apart, it is not gain say that at the time when the award has been passed the by the learned Tribunal, the trend of the Court/Tribunal was to award the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation. In view of these facts and the law as it stood as on relevant date, more so when that part of the award of the learned Tribunal has not been challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, this contention made cannot be accepted. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.