In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 60 / 2005 1) Dr. Santosh Kumar Dutta, 11, Bidhan Pally, P.S. Regent Park, Kolkata-700084. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Reliance Indistries Ltd., 34, Chowringee Road, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 2 7 Dated 0 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 . The instant case arises out of a petition of complaint filed on 1.2.05 by the complainant Dr. Santosh Kr. Dutta u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against Reliance Industries Ltd., 3rd floor, Maker Chambers IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 having its city office at 34, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71 with a prayer to issue order (a) to restore the telephone connection of the petitioner, (b) to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1 lakh for wrongful disconnection of telephone line leading to the professional loss as a doctor, (c) to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service, (d) to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the aforesaid compensation amount till its recovery, (e) alternatively, to pay back the entire deposited amount with 18% interest p.a. apart from compensation in terms of prayer (b), (f) to pay cost of the case and (g) to give any other relief or reliefs as per law. Our perusal of the petition of complaint, w/v of o.p., affidavit of evidence and BNA of the complainant and documents on record, it is evident that the instant case has been filed against the o.p. on the allegation of unwarranted inflated monthly bill amount. It is worth mentioning here so far billing dispute is concerned in respect of telecom, the matter should be referred to Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in accordance with sec 7-8 of the Indian Telegraph Act and not to Consumer Forum since Forum is not the proper place for adjudication of such billing dispute. In General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & other (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that “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”. As per sec 7-B(2) of Indian Telegraph act the award of the arbitrator appointed under subsextion (1) of the said act shall be conclusive between the parties to the disputes and shall not be questioned in any court. Again, 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. It is well settled that this special law over rides the general law. Thus, the case is disposed of without passing any order. However, the complainant is given the liberty to take up the mater with the Telegraph Authority in accordance with the provision of section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. Fees paid are correct. Certified copy of this order be issued to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_______ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
