ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) This is postal department’s appeal against the order dated 31.08.2006 passed by the District Forum, Pithoragarh, allowing consumer complaint No. 14/2004 and directing the appellant to make payment of Rs. 17,000/- deposited by the complainant in term deposit account No. 653180 together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.11.2000 till payment and Rs. 6,000/- as litigation expenses and damages for mental agony. 2. On 20.11.1999, Sh. Narayan Ram was posted as Postmaster, Post Office Madsaun, District Pithoragarh. On that day, complainant Sh. Khim Singh Saun gave sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the said postmaster for depositing the amount for a year in term deposit scheme of the post office. The said postmaster instead of depositing the amount as such, kept it with him and gave passbook of closed term deposit account No. 653180 to the complainant by endorsing complainant’s name on the slips pasted on the said passbook showing deposit of the amount of Rs. 17,000/- on 20.11.1999. The postmaster illegally misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 17,000/- and played fraud upon the complainant. 3. The illegal activities of the said postmaster thereafter came to surface and criminal case against him was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Sh. Narayan Ram was, in the criminal case, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. These facts were not in dispute. 4. Postal department took the stand in the case that it would not be saddled with the liability to pay the amount illegally misappropriated by the said postmaster and claimed that the department has not made any deficiency in service in refusing to pay the amount to the complainant. 5. The District Forum, however, opined that when the amount had been embezzled and illegally misappropriated by the officer of the post department, the liability to pay the amount was that of the department and on that premise, came to the conclusion that the postal department made deficiency in service in not paying the amount deposited under the term deposit scheme by the complainant and went on to pass the aforesaid order. 6. None appeared on behalf of the complainant – respondent despite notice sent by registered post, which had not been received back unserved. Therefore, the service was deemed sufficient. 6. None appeared on behalf of the complainant – respondent despite notice sent by registered post, which had not been received back unserved. Therefore, the service was deemed sufficient. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully considered his submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and the legal aspects of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant persuasively argued that the postal department could have been held liable for any deficiency in case the amount by the postmaster was actually deposited in the department’s account under the term deposit scheme and in the account of the complainant. According to the learned counsel, under the fiduciary relationship of the master and servant, the master cannot be held liable for any illegal activity of the servant beyond the purview of the legal discharge of the duty by such servant. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be said to be without substance in view of the fact that the postmaster in the instant case, has not rendered statutory service on the basis of prescribed rules and regulations and duties imposed upon him and, as such, the postal department could not have been held liable to compensate the complainant for illegal appropriation and embezzlement of the amount by the said official by playing fraud with the complainant in the matter of deposit of Rs. 17,000/- on 20.11.1999. Taking academic view of the facts of the case in the above background, the submission of the learned counsel that the District Forum was not justified in allowing the consumer complaint, cannot be safely rejected. 7. We have, however, considered the case in practical terms keeping in view the fact that the delinquent official of the appellant was found guilty and sentence to imprisonment for committing the offence of embezzlement and misappropriation of the deposits. In view of it, the dismissal of the delinquent official from the government service of the department, was a necessary corollary and in that event, the official must not have only forfeited right to pension, but recovery of amount must have been made from him or from his fund or gratuity etc. according to law by the department. The complainant had been deprived of his hard earned saving of Rs. according to law by the department. The complainant had been deprived of his hard earned saving of Rs. 17,000/- on account of embezzlement by the delinquent official of the postal department and in the face of the above facts, the department should have considered the claim of the complainant with compassion and then to make ex-gratia payment of at least principal sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant. This had not been done and in the peculiar aspects of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that in not doing so, the postal department made deficiency in service and, therefore, was liable to be saddled with the responsibility to pay the said amount of Rs. 17,000/- by way of ex-gratia to the complainant. We, therefore, find it justified to hold that the postal department has to be held liable for ex-gratia payment of Rs. 17,000/- only to the complainant and the order passed by the District Forum need to be modified accordingly, so that the postal department may be absolved of paying interest and damages to the complainant. 8. Appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 31.08.2006 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the postal department shall make ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,7000/- only to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order. No order as to cost.