PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna in first appeal No. 61 of 2005, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others have filing the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 04.12.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patna by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed and was awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and enhanced the compensation by Rs. 1,000/- per day for the entire period of first disconnection and second disconnection during the pendency of the appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.P. Dixit, respondent in person and have considered their submissions. The first and foremost argument raised by Mr. Pattjoshi is that the consumer fora had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant in view of the provisions of Section 7-B of the India Telegraph Act, 1885. In -3- support of his contention, he heavily relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), where in Para 6 and 7 of the said order, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “6. 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. Section 7B of the Telegraph Act reads as under: Section 7B Arbitration of Disputes – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning 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. 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.” The decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances. Mr. Dixit has nothing to argue against the same. -4- 3. In view of the legal position emerging from the said decision, we have no option but to allow the present petition and dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint itself was not maintainable before the District Forum. We order accordingly. Time taken in the proceedings before different consumer fora shall be condoned and it would be open for the respondent-complainant to seek a reference of the dispute to the arbitration in terms of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, 1885 within a period of three months from the date of this order. 4. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be released to the petitioner. | 
