ORAL ORDER Case of Respondent/Complainant is that he is consumer of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties having Landline Telephone No.2571862 The said telephone remained out of order for about 2 months in the year 2000, for about one month from 11.10.2001 and also for about three months from 23.11.2003 as well as from 1st Part of July till filing of the complaint before the District Forum. It is further alleged that inpsite of repeated requests and written complaint, respondents had neither removed the defects in time nor replied to his complaints, which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, respondent a total compensation of Rs.1,63,000/- 2. Respondents contested the complaint and filed joint written statement. 3. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup at Guwahati (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide order dated 21.06.2005 did not grant relief claim by the respondent. However, it granted certain rebate on rentals . 4. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam,(for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide impugned order dated 25.08.2009 allowed the appeal. 5. Hence, present revision. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record . 7. Since, dispute raised by the respondent in the Consumer Complaint pertain to Landline Telephone services and its maintenance, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Another (2009) 8 SCC, 481, complaint filed by respondent is not maintainable. 8. In General Manager, Telecom (Supra), Apex Court has held; “5. In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. 6. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under; “7-B :- Arbitration of Disputes – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court”. 7. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. 8. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach. In Thiruvalluvar Tranasport Corpn. V. Consumer Protection Council, it was held that the “National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents”. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment”. 9. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on us. We respectfully follow the same. Consequently, we allow the present revision petition and dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum. However, respondent is at liberty to seek appropriate relief before appropriate Forum, in accordance with provisions of law. 10. No order as to cost. 11. Dasti to both parties. | 
