Both parties are present through their learned counsels.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is a consumer of a telephone having telephone connection number 285228 since May 2002 and his consumer number as past recorded as 517025 and subsequently as being 507432. The connection of the claimant is that he has been paying regularly the amount of telephone bill from 11/05/2002 till May, 2005 except for two inflated bills for the month of July, 2002 and September, 2002 amounting to Rs.4,167.00 (Rupees four thousand one hundred sixty seven) and Rs.3,388.00 (Rupees three thousand three hundred eighty-eight) respectively when phone connection was disconnected w.e.f. 17/06/2005.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in length in respect of maintainability of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in his Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Appeal No.7687/04
The General Manager, Telecom          …        Appellant
                                    versus
M. Krishnan and another                    …        Respondent
in which the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that
“When there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding the dispute in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.”

Since this is a case in which the telephone connection of the complainant was disconnected due to nonpayment of allegedly inflated two bills of the respondent, thus the aforesaid case lodged is squarely applicable in his case.

In view of the discussion of above and also in view of the discussion of the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated above, the case is dismissed as not maintainable as the remedy in the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred in this case and the case is disposed of on contest accordingly.