Arguments heard. 2. Alongwith present petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. Delay condoned. 3. Respondent/Complainant, Shri Phool Singh Paurush, Advocate, filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hathras (Mahamayanagar) (for short, istrict Forum) on the allegations that his telephone no.34480 has not been working regularly since 1998, and was disconnected on 16.7.2001 due to non-payment. After that the respondent/complainant made the payment of outstanding bills on 28.2.2002 vide receipt no.246/9 and 54280 dated 27.3.202 in the department but the telephone was not energized by the petitioner till the date of giving notice. Although petitioner and other concerned officials were informed by the respondent from time to time that he is an advocate and is not able to contact his client. Due to non contact with the clients, respondent is not getting the information from his clients at the right time. In this way, respondent is facing financial loss and mental agony. Thus, it was prayed by the respondent that he be compensated for physical and mental agony at Rs.250/- per day w.e.f. 27.3.2002 towards mental, physical and financial loss and his telephone connection should be restored immediately. 4. Petitioner contested the complaint before the District Forum. 5. The District Forum vide order dated 11.5.2006, allowed the complaint and directed; hat after depositing the outstanding bills by the complainant, the opposite party shall restore the telephone within 10 days. The complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,500/- (One thousand five hundred only) for financial, physical and mental agony per month from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 9.10.2002 till the date of payment. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.1,000/- as cost. 6. Being aggrieved, Petitioner-Nigam filed an appeal before the State Commission, which vide its impugned order dated 29.8.2007 dismissed the same. 7. Hence, this revision. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner-Nigam that in view of decision of eneral Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another (2009) 8 SCC, 481 consumer complaint with regard to telephone bill is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. 9. We fully agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Honle Supreme Court in eneral Manager, Telecom (supra) has laid down that ; . 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. Judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on us. We respectfully follow the same and dismiss the present revision petition. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by State Commission as well as that of the District Forum, stand set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent before the District Forum stands dismissed. 11. However, respondent is given liberty to seek appropriate relief before appropriate Forum. 12. Amount deposited by the petitioner in terms of order dated 24.7.2008 passed by this Commission, be refunded to the petitioner after due identification. 13. No order as to cost. 14. Dasti.