JUDGMENT : Not satisfied with the findings of the tribunal regarding liability and quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants have come before this court by filing the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellants/claimants that their daughter died in a road accident on 06.08.2018. According to them, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle driven by the first respondent/owner and insured with the second respondent. When the motorcycle came near YMCA school opposite to Highlight Tea Stall, the first respondent/owner had driven the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost its control and fell down. Due to which, the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and died on her way to the hospital and hence, the appellants/claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.36,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent/owner, who was the driver of the motorcycle remained ex parte and the claim petition was opposed only by the second respondent/insurer by filing counter. 4. The tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the first respondent/owner. The tribunal also found that the deceased was a pillion rider in the said motorcycle and hence, the second respondent/insurer was not liable to pay compensation and only the owner of the motorcycle viz. first respondent/owner was liable to pay the compensation and quantified the compensation payable to the appellants/claimants at Rs.20,75,600/-. Not satisfied with the findings as to liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellants/claimants have come before this court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the policy issued by the second respondent/insurer covering the motorcycle involved in the accident owned by the first respondent/owner is a package policy and therefore, the second respondent/insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the passenger, who travelled as a pillion rider. He would further submit that the notional income of Rs.13,000/- fixed by the tribunal is a meager one. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer would fairly state that the policy issued to the motorcycle owned by the first respondent/owner was a package policy and therefore, the second respondent/insurer is liable to pay the compensation jointly and severely with the first respondent/owner. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer would fairly state that the policy issued to the motorcycle owned by the first respondent/owner was a package policy and therefore, the second respondent/insurer is liable to pay the compensation jointly and severely with the first respondent/owner. As far as the notional income is concerned, he would submit that the appellants/claimants failed to file any evidence to prove the income of the deceased as claimed in their claim petition and therefore, the tribunal was justified in fixing the notional income at Rs.13,000/- per month. He would further submit that in the claim petition, the appellants/claimants mentioned the policy number of the motorcycle in column no.16 as “Pol No.:3005/2011048661/00/0000011950”, however, a copy of the same was not marked as an exhibit before the tribunal. 7. When the matter is argued before this court, a copy of the policy bearing “Pol No.:3005/2011048661/00/0000011950” has been produced before this court by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer, who conceded that the policy issued to the first respondent/owner covering the motorcycle involved in the accident is a package policy and therefore, the second respondent/insurer is liable jointly and severely to honour the claim along with the first respondent/owner. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal that the second respondent/insurer was not liable to honour the award in favour of the appellants/claimants and consequential dismissal of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7164 of 2018 against the second respondent/insurer is set aside. It is held that both the first respondent/owner and second respondent/insurer are liable to pay compensation jointly and severely to the appellants/claimants. 8. In the claim petition, it was stated by the appellants/claimants that the deceased was employed as a Data Entry Executive and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the appellants/claimants produced salary certificate (Ex.P12) and salary bank account passbook (Ex.P14) of the deceased. 9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that as per the salary certificate (Ex.P12), the salary of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month and she was paid monthly incentive of Rs.5,000/- by way of cash and the same was credited in the salary account as evidenced from the salary bank account passbook (Ex.P14). 10. 9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that as per the salary certificate (Ex.P12), the salary of the deceased was Rs.10,000/- per month and she was paid monthly incentive of Rs.5,000/- by way of cash and the same was credited in the salary account as evidenced from the salary bank account passbook (Ex.P14). 10. Though, we cannot come to a definite conclusion that the monthly incentive of Rs.5000/- was paid to the deceased for every month based on the salary bank account passbook (Ex.P14) statements for few months, taking into consideration the date of accident and the prevailing costs of living, this Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. The tribunal based on the copy of the aadhaar card (Ex.P5) of the deceased, fixed her age at 23 years and therefore, the appellants/claimants are entitled to 40% enhancement towards future prospects. The applicable multiplier is 18. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.22,68,000/- (15000x1.4x12x18x1/2). As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , 2017 (16) SCC 680 the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Further, as per the judgment cited supra, the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is modified as follows: S.No. Description Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Amount awarded by this Court (in Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency 19,65,000/- 22,68,000/- 2 Loss of consortium 80,000/- 80,000/- 3 Loss of estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 4 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- Total 20,75,600/- 23,78,000/- 11. In view of the discussions made earlier, the total compensation payable to the appellants/claimants is enhanced to a sum of Rs.23,78,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% on the enhanced award from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. It is also held that the first respondent/owner and second respondent/insurer are liable to pay the said amount to the appellants/claimants jointly and severely. It is also held that the first respondent/owner and second respondent/insurer are liable to pay the said amount to the appellants/claimants jointly and severely. The second respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P.No.7164 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Small Causes Court), Chennai, along with interests and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, by making formal application before the tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Since the appellants/claimants challenged the exoneration of the second respondent/insurer, the appellants/claimants shall pay court fee on the value of award as well as value of enhancement sought for in this appeal. Therefore, appeal shall be valued at Rs.30,75,600/- and applicable deficit court fee shall be paid by the appellants/claimants. No costs.