The interpretation of contractual clauses should be in favor of the consumer, in line with the provisions of consumer protection laws.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—We propose to decide the two appeals bearing Nos. 280 and 281 both of 2004, mentioned above, which arise from a common judgment and order dated 25.3.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hererinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 1040 dated 3.12.2002, Jatinder Singh Juneja v. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short hereinafter to be referred to as PUDA) and Another, deciding another Complaint Case No. 1041 of 2002, Smt. Surinder Kaur v. PUDA and Another. The two complaint cases were taken up for disposal by a common judgment on the ground that they involved common questions of law and facts. The facts were, however, extracted from the case filed by respondent Shri Jatinder Singh Juneja. The relevant facts for disposal of these two appeals as extracted from the complaint case are as under:

2. The appellant-PUDA floated a scheme for allotment of freehold booth sites on reserved price in S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in District Ropar. The scheme commenced from 25.6.2001 and closed on 27.7.2001. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was required to be deposited as the application money as set out in the brochure (Annexure C-1) issued by the appellant PUDA. The brochure enables a person to either move an application under ordinary scheme of allotment or under Tatkal scheme of allotment. The latter scheme known as Tatkal scheme of allotment required the applicant to deposit 10% extra amount than under the ordinarily allotment price. Undisputedly, the respondent Shri Jatinder Singh Juneja, as also the other respondent/complainant Smt. Surinder Kaur opted for the second alternative offer applying under the Tatkal scheme of allotment. The applicants under the Tatkal scheme of allotment were to be considered first for draw of lots, preferred over the applicants under the ordinarily scheme of allotment. The appellant PUDA intimated to the respondent vide their letter dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure C-4) that he was successful under the Tatkal scheme and asked him to approach the Chief Administrator, PUDA on 10.10.2001 at 9.00 a.m. for selection of the premises, which in the instant case was a booth, of his choice. The respondent/complainant opted for booth No. 82-A, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali and gave it in writing vide letter Annexure C-5.

3. A letter of intent in respect of the aforesaid booth was issued by the appellant PUDA on 18.1.2002 to the respondent/complainant wherein the tentative price was worked as Rs. 15,10,502/-. The appellant required the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,77,628/- within 60 days from the date of issue of letter of intent being 25% of the tentative price. The Condition No. 4 of the letter of intent enabled the respondent/complainant to make request for extension of the aforesaid period of 60 days by further 30 days by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali by making a written request. The extension of 30 days time could be given subject to payment of interest @ 2% per month, calculated on daily basis, on the amount due. The earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- was to be adjusted towards costs of 25%.

4. Clause 6 of the letter of intent provides that in case the applicant neither deposited the money within 90 days nor gave his refusal to accept this offer within 90 days, the entire earnest money deposited by such applicant shall stand forfeited. Clause 7 of letter of intent conferred a right on the respondent/complainant to transfer the letter of intent by way of sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise with the permission of Estate Officer, PUDA and subject to the payment of transfer fee equal to 5% of the amount deposited with PUDA, which could be revised also by PUDA from time-to-time. Clause 8 contained a condition that booth was allotted under the “General Trade” and any trade involving use of fire cooking, manufacturing, repair of furniture, car, cycle, etc., sale of fish/meat or any trade which cause obstru