JUDGMENT D. D. Bahuguna, Member: This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chitrakoot in Complaint Case No. 111999. The facts of the case are as follows. 2. The complainant an 6.3.1999 purchased five crates of 500 ml. bottles of pepsi Cola for reception of the members of the marriage party of his friend Radhey Krishna Gupta. These five crates of Pepsi Cola were purchased from the distributor. Payment was made on, 12.3.1999. While Pepsi was being served to the guests, muck was discovered in one bottle but the same was thrown. Thereafter the remaining bottles were opened with caution. It was found that a Pepsi bottle contained Pan Masala pouch. This bottle was segregated. S/Sri B. M. Verma, S.P Shukla and Akhilesh Ojha have also witnessed the incident who objected to the service of drink to the guests. Because of this, injury was caused to the reputation of the complainant. When the distributor was informed of these facts he replied that the mistake was that of the bottlers. He therefore lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 5,000/was also claimed as cost of proceedings alongwith 18% per annum interest.. 3. The opposite party in the written version before the District Forum has contended that no marriage as alleged took place and as such no purchase was even made. The receipt filed in support of the claim is fictitious document procured in collusion with the distributor, who deliberately has not been made a party to the proceedings. No allegation of injury has been pleaded by the complainant and, therefore, there was no question of paying any compensation to the complainant. The story of marriage and the alleged sale is a concocted one. The receipt has been issued at the behest of the complainant and no transaction of sale of Pepsi Cola took place. None had taken the drinks from the two bottles under suspicion. It was also stated that the witnesses named in the complaint are the friends of the complainant and the receipt of Rs. 550/- has been issued by the Distributor by colluding with the complainant. The bottling is done with utmost care and there can be no question of any negligence as the techniques adopted in bottling are latest one. It was also stated that the witnesses named in the complaint are the friends of the complainant and the receipt of Rs. 550/- has been issued by the Distributor by colluding with the complainant. The bottling is done with utmost care and there can be no question of any negligence as the techniques adopted in bottling are latest one. The officials of the Pepsi Cola company on 30.6.1999 inspected the bottle and expressed the opinion that the said bottle is not that of Pepsi Company and the drink in the controversial bottle is not a genuine one. It is also stated that the product was not consumed and in' any event the question of damages in law does not arise as no legal injury has been caused to the complainant. 4. After hearing both the parties the learned District Forum partly decreed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant within a period of 60 days. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum was also payable by the opposite party to the complainant from the date of judgment. 5. Aggrieved of this order the opposite party has come in appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction as the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith cost of proceedings of Rs. 5,000/- plus 18% per annum interest from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment.• In the circumstances the claim made exceeds Rs. 5 lacs and the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. It was further argued by him that the compensation under Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act is given for loss or injury suffered by the customer due to negligence of the opposite party and in this particular case there was no loss or injury to the complainant as the Pepsi Cola bottle in question was not consumed and was allegedly set aside by the complainant. The complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party as he purchased the drink from the distributor and the bottle in question was not bottled or manufactured by Pepsi Cola. The complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party as he purchased the drink from the distributor and the bottle in question was not bottled or manufactured by Pepsi Cola. The learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the bottle in question contained a pouch of Pan Masala inside which was produced before• the District Forum duly sealed. The quality assurance chemist of the appellant has also examined this bottle and did not submit his report. The Forum then itself opened the bottle and found the Pan Masala pouch lying inside. In case the drink inside the bottle was spurious, .then the same should have been reported by the said chemist in writing. This resulted into setback in the prestige of the complainant and that is why the claim has been lodged. 7. In regard to the point of pecuniary jurisdiction raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is sufficient to say that the claim has been lodged for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant has also claimed interest and the cost of proceedings. The award of interest and cost of proceedings depend on the discretion of the District forum and the same mayor may not be granted keeping in view the situation on case to case basis. 8. The learned Consumer Forum has dealt with this matter and we are inclined to agree with the opinion of the Forum that the case is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum as award of cost of proceedings, and interest are discretionary matters and the same may or may not be allowed. The learned District Forum was therefore within jurisdiction to decide the matter. 9. A careful perusal of the voucher submitted by the complainant will go to show that on 12.3.1999 an amount of Rs. 550/- was charged by Anand Enterprises, distributors of Pepsico India Limited, Station Road, Karvi, H O Rajapur, Sahuji Nagar. In para 3 of the complaint it has been alleged that the purchase of 5 crates of 500 ml Pepsi Cola was made on 6.3.1999 and this casts a serious doubt on the happening of the alleged incidence. If the transaction was made on 6.3.1999 why was the voucher not given on the same day? The voucher is dated 12.3.1999 and it does not mention that it was 1n respect of the transaction made on 6.3.1999. If the transaction was made on 6.3.1999 why was the voucher not given on the same day? The voucher is dated 12.3.1999 and it does not mention that it was 1n respect of the transaction made on 6.3.1999. It is necessary to have confirmation of the distributor on this point. Unfortunately the distributor has not been made a party. It is not necessary that the distributor of the company sold the same product which was bottled by Pepsi Cola Marketing Company. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that the distributor had made the voucher or receipt in collusion with the complainant is well founded. The products of the brand companies are sold through a large network of distributors and dealers. These products are in high demand and it is a matter of common knowledge that on a number of occasions the products are found to be spurious which may not be the act of the bottler or manufacturing' company. In case the distributor, Anand Enterprises had been made a party, then he could have submitted the information that the product was received from Pepsi Company alone. The onus lies on the complainant to prove that the bottle he had set aside was containing the spurious material supplied by opposite party in this case. The appellants in their affidavit have stated that the Quality manager of their company had found the offending bottle spurious and not manufactured by the appellants. The quality of the contents' and its genuineness can be effectively inspected only in the laboratory of the company. In this case no demand has been made to send the material to the laboratory to examine its genuineness. A perusal of evidence goes to show that the Quality Manager had appeared before the Forum on 30.6.1999. for inspecting the offending bottle and the appellant filed its written statement on 7.9.1999 and has stated the finding of the Quality Manager who found that the product was not of Pepsi Company and was a spurious one. The District Forum should have while opening the bottle, taken into consideration the crown cork on which the name of the manufacturer is printed. The complainant also failed to produce the affidavit of the distributor to the effect that' the sale of Pepsi Cola bottle was made by him. In the circumstances the opposite party can not be blamed for the accidence if any. 10. The complainant also failed to produce the affidavit of the distributor to the effect that' the sale of Pepsi Cola bottle was made by him. In the circumstances the opposite party can not be blamed for the accidence if any. 10. In view of the above discussions we find that the case of the complainant has not been established and the District Forum erred in deciding that the opposite party was at fault. The appeal is liable to be allotted and the judgment and order of the District Forum are liable to be set aside. ORDER 11. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties.