By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member: The case of the complainant is that the complainant had availed a mobile connection of the respondent on 3.11.2003. Rs.1500/- as STD deposit and Rs.250/- as Sim card charge was paid at the time of taking connection and he was made to believe that Rs.1500/- will be returned whenever the connection is disconnected. The complainant sent a letter dt. 8.6.06 seeking disconnection and paid the bill amount upto 12.5.06. The complainant never used the mobile connection after 8.6.06. Hence he has to get Rs.1209.40. After the above said letter the respondent had threatened the complainant that they will take action against the complainant. The complainant sent lawyer notices dt. 9.1.2008 and 16.1.08. The respondent sent replies also. But no remedy so far. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter filed by the respondent is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant had availed a mobile connection of the respondent company. The alleged letter seeking disconnection and adjustment of bill amount from Rs.1500/- is denied by the respondent. It is also denied that the respondent had threatened that they will take action against the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.1209.40. The charges so generated are towards rental as the complainant’s connection was post paid. Currently the complainant’s connection is closed after adjusting the deposit amount against bill and passing a waiver for the rest of the outstanding amount. The respondents also raised jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by virtue of the judgement dt. 1.9.09 rendered by the Hon. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004. 3. The respondents raised the question of maintainability before the Forum. Hence it is to be decided. 4. We heard the maintainability in the light of new Supreme Court ruling. According to the respondent, the complaint is not maintainable since the telephone bill is under challenge. As per Section 7B of the Telegraph Act when there is a special remedy, remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Then the question is when there is a special remedy under S.7B of Telegraph Act regarding dispute in respect of telephone bills remedy under Consumer Protection Act, if can be invoked? The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is a special remedy provided under Section 7B of Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills then remedy under Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The present case is filed to return the balance of deposited amount after deducting bill amount. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. 5. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Arbitration Authority within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Meanwhile the respondent is restrained from taking any coercive action on the basis of disputed bill. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of July 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
