ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President . - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 01.10.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.135/2015 titled Lekh Raj v. Assistant Engineer H.P. Housing & U.D.A. Brief facts of Case : 2. Shri Lekh Raj filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant has his house in Plot No. HIG 16 in Housing Colony at Bangana District Una H.P. It is pleaded that complainant is consumer of opposite party as opposite party has provided service to the complainant after receiving maintenance charges of the land. It is pleaded that maintenance charges for the period of 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 amounting to Rs. 808/- was payable upto 31.03.2015. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant approached opposite party on 25.02.2015 for depositing the maintenance charges but opposite party refused to receive maintenance charges and opposite party told the complainant to deposit the amount along-with penalty. It is pleaded that maintenance charges were deposited within time under protest. It is pleaded that complainant made representation against illegal act and conduct of opposite party but opposite party did not give any weightage to the genuine request of complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that present complaint filed by the complainant without any cause of action. It is pleaded that complainant has sued the opposite party through Assistant Engineer whereas it should be sued through C.O. cum-Secretary. It is further pleaded that concerned bill was issued to the complainant on 08.01.2015 with the direction to deposit the bill amount within 30 days failing which penal interest was to be charged. It is pleaded that bill was deposited by complainant after delay of 18 days. It is further pleaded that penalty was charged for late payment. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. It is further pleaded that penalty was charged for late payment. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit annexure-C1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent has his house in plot No.HIG 16 in Housing Colony at Bangana District Una H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is consumer of opposite party and opposite party has provided service to the deponent after receiving maintenance charges of land. There is recital in affidavit that maintenance charges for the period 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 was amounting to Rs. 808/- payable upto 31.03.2015. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent approached opposite party on 25.02.2015 for depositing the maintenance charges but opposite party refused to deposit the same and opposite party directed complainant to deposit above amount along-with penalty. There is further recital in affidavit that maintenance charges were deposited under protest. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has no legal right to issue advance letter in January 2015 for the maintenance charges of prospective months i.e. February and March 2015. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 8. Per contra opposite party filed affidavit of S.P. Kaplesh Assistant Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is allottee of house No.HIG-16 situated at Housing Colony Bangana and allotment was subject to terms and conditions executed inter se parties. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party is under legal obligation to provide basic services i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage etc. and allottee is under legal obligation to pay maintenance charges of services rendered by opposite party. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party is under legal obligation to provide basic services i.e. roads, water supply, sewerage etc. and allottee is under legal obligation to pay maintenance charges of services rendered by opposite party. There is further recital in affidavit that maintenance bill dated 08.01.2015 was issued by office of opposite party for period October 2014 to March 2015 which was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of bill. There is further recital in affidavit that bill was to be deposited on or before 07.02.2015 without interest and same was deposited 18 days late. There is recital in affidavit that interest of late payment was charges from complainant to the tune of Rs. 40/-. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that as per terms and conditions executed inter se parties opposite party was under legal obligation to demand maintenance service charges month wise and not in advance for prospective maintenance and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has perused the terms and conditions of maintenance charges provision mentioned in annexure-R3 placed on record. Condition No.24 deals with maintenance charges provision which is quoted in toto :- "The allottee shall pay every month service charges for the maintenance of common portion and common services to discharge such functions. The owner shall determine the amount of such charges and the decision of the owner in this behalf shall be final and binding on the allottee. In case maintenance charges are not paid within the prescribed period the allottee will be liable to pay penal interest @ 18% per annum". Sd/- Lekh Raj Estate Manager H.P. Houses Authority. 10. As per written condition No.24 the allottee was liable to pay service charges month wise. State Commission has also perused the notice for payment of maintenance charges issued by opposite party on dated 08.01.2015. Opposite party has demanded the maintenance charges on dated 08.01.2015 for period of 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015. Opposite party has demanded the maintenance charges for six months in lump sum to the tune of Rs. 808/-. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party was not legally entitled to demand lump sum charges for six months as per written terms and conditions of allotment letter. Opposite party has demanded the maintenance charges for six months in lump sum to the tune of Rs. 808/-. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party was not legally entitled to demand lump sum charges for six months as per written terms and conditions of allotment letter. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party was under legal obligation to demand monthly charges from the allottee qua maintenance charges as per written terms and conditions of allotment letter signed by both parties. 11. No reason assigned by opposite party as to why the monthly charges were not demanded from the complainant as per written terms and conditions of allotment letter executed inter se parties. It is well settled law that no one can be allowed to approbate and reprobate the written terms and conditions of allotment letter for its own benefit. It is held that nothing can be added or detracted from written terms and conditions of allotment letter signed by both parties. See CPR 2016 (4) 487 NC titled Amandeep Kaur v. DLF Universal Ltd. & other . See 2017(1) CPR 315 NC title M/s. Krishna Kunj v. Rabindra Nath Basu & others . See 2017(3) CPR 52 NC title Haj Committee of India v. Mohd. & other . 12. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party has violated written condition No.24 of allotment letter annexure-R3 placed on record. There is no provision in annexure-R3 that opposite party could demand lump sum charges for six months qua maintenance charges. Even in the affidavit filed by S.P. Kaplesh Assistant Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority deponent has admitted that maintenance bill dated 08.01.2015 was issued by office of opposite party for a period of October 2014 to March 2015. No reason assigned by opposite party as to why monthly bill was not issued to the complainant as per written terms and conditions of allotment letter. No reason assigned by opposite party as to why prospective maintenance bill claimed on dated 08.01.2015 for the months February 2015 and March 2015. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that present complaint should be filed against C.O.-Cum-Secretary and on this ground complaint be dismissed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused the bill annexure-C3 placed on record dated 08.01.2015. Vide Annexure-C3 Assistant Engineer H.P. Housing & UDA has demanded amount of Rs. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that present complaint should be filed against C.O.-Cum-Secretary and on this ground complaint be dismissed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused the bill annexure-C3 placed on record dated 08.01.2015. Vide Annexure-C3 Assistant Engineer H.P. Housing & UDA has demanded amount of Rs. 808/- from the complainant for the period 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 on dated 08.01.2015 and there is recital that if bill would not be paid by due date then amount of Rs. 865/- would be payable along-with penalty. It is held that annexure-C3 is ipso facto contrary to written terms and conditions of allotment letter wherein it has been mentioned in a positive manner that maintenance charges shall be claimed month wise. State Commission is of the opinion that word shall is mandatory in nature and not directory in nature. It is held that opposite party cannot take benefit of its own laxity. It is held that complaint could be filed against person who had issued maintenance charges bill. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Prospective maintenance charges claimed by opposite party vide bill No.3506 dated 08.01.2015 for month of February 2015 and March 2015 along-with penalty on dated 08.01.2015 is set aside. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extend only. Maintenance charges bill annexure-C3 and terms and conditions of allotment of HIG plot No.16 in HIMUDA colony at Bangana Una H.P. under Hire Purchase basis will form part and parcel of order. Opposite party will be at liberty to recover maintenance charges from complainant qua months of February 2015 and March 2015 in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along-with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.