P. D. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) BEFORE considering the contentions on merits the settled legal position may be briefly adverted to. It is well-settled that under sec. 1a of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 which is in substance a reproduction of the English Fatal Accidents Acts (known as the Lord Campbells Acts) damages are to be based on the reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit or benefit reducible to money value. The actual extent of the pecuniary loss may depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accu- rately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture. The pecuniary loss has to be ascertained only by balancing on the one hand the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefits and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to them by reason of the death that is the balance of loss and gain to the dependents by the death must be asserted (See Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami A. I. R. 1962 S. C. p. 1 ). It is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action under sec. 1a that the deceased should have been earning money or moneys worth or contributing to the support of the claimant at or before the date of the death provided that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the con- tinuance of the life. Even a prospective pecuniary loss is liable to be compensated provided it is shown that a reasonable expectation of pecu- niary benefit could be entertained by the claimant. In other words an action under sec. 1a can lie for the pecuniary loss actual or expected and even the destruction of a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit is liable to be compensated. (See Taff vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins 1913 Appeal Cases 1 ). In England it is well-settled that in an action under the Campbells Acts the damages recoverable are not limited to the value of money lost or the money value of things lost but includes monetary loss incurred by replacing services rendered gratuitously by the deceased where there was a reasonable prospect of their being rendered freely in the future but for the death (For examples Berry v. Humm and Co. 1915 I K. B. 6 (7) In view of the fact that sec. 1915 I K. B. 6 (7) In view of the fact that sec. 1a of our Fatal Accidents Act and the relevant provisions of Lord Campbells Acts are molded on the same lines decisions of English Courts are relevant while considering a claim for compensation under sec. 1a of our Fatal Accidents Act. That is why in Khodabhai Bhagwanji v. Hirji Tupu XXI G. L. R. 187 following the decision in Berry v. Humm and Co. (supra) damages were awarded to a husband on the accidental death of his wife who rendered gratuitous help in running a big household and also rendered similar help in agri- cultural operations. The claim for the monetary loss incurred or likely to be incurred for replacing services rendered gratuitously by the deceased is therefore comprised in the claim for pecuniary loss which can be advanced under sec. 1a. Another aspect which has to be borne in mind while considering a claim for compensation upon the death of an infant or an adult unmarried child is the possibility or even probability that if be had not died he would some day have married and in consequence his contribution actual or prospective to his parents would have ceased or would have become much smaller. It is apparent that claims of his own family would reduce his contribution towards maintenance of the parents even where as in our country there is statutory recognition of the obligation of a son to provide maintenance to his aged parents. In the ultimate analysis the dependency benefit has to be worked out by making the usual discount for the uncertainty of life the fact that the dependents are receiving a lump sum payment and all other relevant fac- tors. In adopting the multiplier the age of the child and that of the parents has to be borne in mind. Appeal allowed. .