PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.           Counsel for the petitioner present.  Amicus for the respondent with the Respondent in person present.  The attention of the learned counsel is invited towards the Supreme Court Authority reported in the case of General Manager, Telecom Versus M. Krishnan and Another (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481, which clearly goes to show that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain such like complaint.  Para No. 5,6 & 7 runs as follows:-

“5.         In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the 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 dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes 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 the Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.”

2.      Consequently, we accept the Revision Petition and set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum.  The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  However, complainant is given the liberty to get redressal of his grievances before the appropriate forum or court and so far as the question of limitation is concerned, he can seek help from Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute –(1995) 3 SCC 583.