ORDER

Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—Under challenge in this First Appeal No.366 of 2013 is the impugned order of the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 27.02.2013. Vide this order, in C.C. No.12/2012, the State Commission had dismissed the complaint.

2. Very briefly, facts of the case are as follows. The appellants – Mrs. Catherine de Souza (complainant no.1) and Mr. Jude de Souza (complainant no.2) had, on 29.08.2009, five fixed deposits maturing on 29.08.2010 with 7% interest p.a., payable on “any one or survivor basis”. Wife of complainant no.2, Ms. Aleta de Souza was also a joint holder along with the complainants. Ms. Aleta de Souza wrote a letter dated 20.04.2010 to the bank instructing not to break the fixed deposits except in her presence and with her signature. Respondents No.1 – Bank of Maharasthra (OP No1) and respondent no.2 - Mr. Ramesh Jagtap (OP No.2), (‘OPs’) informed the complainants about the said objection vide letter dated 14.08.2010, and further informed that the bank would not be in a position to either renew the FDs or pay the dues on the maturity date. So stating, the OPs informed the complainan