Arguments heard. Order after lunch.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 has filed the present revision petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent was having a mobile connection from the petitioner Company. On receipt of the bill relating to the period March 2005 to 24th April 2005, respondent found certain mistakes on the bill and made complaint to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the grievances of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North West District), Delhi (in short, he District Forum. 3. District Forum vide its order dated 3rd July 2009, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and also awarded Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide its impugned order. 5. Hence, this present revision petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent who has appeared in person. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the various decisions of the Honle Supreme Court, consumer forum has no jurisdiction to deal with such matters especially in view of Section 7 B of the Telegraph Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: 1. General Manager, Telecom vs M Krishnan & Anr. 2009 8 SCC - 481 2. Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular Ltd., and Anr. RP no. 1703 of 2010 decided on 21.05.2010. 3. Prakash Verma vs Idea Cellular Ltd., and Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) no. 24577 of 2010 decided on 01.10.2010. 4. Lokesh Parashar vs M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., and Anr. RP no. 3780 of 2011 decided on 20.04.2012. 5. HVPNL vs Mahavir 2001 10 SCC 659 6. H K N Swami vs Irshad Basith 2005 10 SCC 243 7. Godfrey Philips India Limited vs Ajay Kumar 2008 4 SCC - 504 8. On the other hand, respondent has contended that he is a consumer qua the petitioner and complaint filed by him is maintainable. 9. In M.Krishnan (supra), the Apex Court held; . 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 ; -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 ational 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. 10. The judgment of the Apex Court is binding on us and we respectfully follow the same. Accordingly, following the decision of M Krishnan (Supra), we hold that both the Fora below have committed error in allowing the complaint of the respondent. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum stand dismissed and the revision petition is allowed with no order as to cost.