Respondent/complainant was having a telephone connection from the petitioner.  Petitioner raised bills dated 04.03.2004, 17.04.2004 and 17.06.2004 for a sum of Rs.400/-, Rs.25,308/- and 46,462/- respectively showing metered calls 18886 and 35145 for the period from 27.01.2004 to 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 to 31.05.2004 respectively.  Respondent did not pay the bills as according to him he

-2-

had not made these calls.  Petitioner disconnected his telephone connection, aggrieved against which the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission.

          State Commission has allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and quashed the bills with a direction to the petitioner to restore the connection of the complainant/respondent after collecting the rental charges from him.

          Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.

          Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 481”  contends that the fora under the Consumer Protection Act do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; that the dispute between the parties could be resolved by arbitration in terms of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.

          We agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner.  As per judgment of Supreme Court in M. Krishnan’s case

-3-

(supra) the fora under the Consumer Protection Act do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in respect of telephone bills.  Respectfully following the view taken by the Supreme Court, we accept this revision petition, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

          Parties are left to resolve their dispute by arbitration in terms of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act.