Petitioner – Corporation who suffered adverse order before District Forum and also State Commission are in revision for somewhat tenable grounds. Factual backgrounds are that respondent was allotted a post-paid ‘Garuda CDMA’ Mobile telephone along-with mobile set by petitioner Corporation on 25.09.2004, which was activated on 28.09.2004. It seems that no complaint about mal-functioning of instrument was raised by respondent for two years. A complaint was, however, lodged with petitioner – Corporation for some infirmity with instrument which surfaced during the period of June, 2006 to July, 2006. It is not in dispute that instruments were replaced four times during this period by petitioner Corporation. A complaint eventually came to be lodged with District Forum, which was accepted, holding petitioner Corporation liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service, mental agony and also harassment caused. Since there were outstanding dues, a sum of Rs. 1,321/- was also directed to be adjusted from compensation awarded. Cost of litigation of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded by District Forum. In appeal too, State Commission, having held similar views about replacement of instrument four times by petitioner Corporation, which was evidently an evidence about deficiency in service of petitioner Corporation, affirmed finding of District forum. Instrument allotted to respondent, on 25.09.2004, however, had warranty of 12 months. Nobody has a case that there was any complaint during the warranty period as for instrument. If petitioner Corporation replaced instrument four times beyond warranty period, that would not make them answerable to pay compensation, holding deficiency in service on their part. That apart, the connection was severed by petitioner Corporation on 10.08.2006 for non-payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 1,321/-. It seems that only after respondent failed to persuade petitioner Corporation to restore the line without payment of dues, that complaint was filed some times in May, 2007, against petitioner Corporation. We may also take notice of a decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of GM, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. – (Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004) in which regard being had to Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act which provides for settlement of dispute concerning Telegraph line, appliance or apparatus, arising between Telegraph authority and its beneficiary, by Arbitration, it was held by Hon’ble Apex court that dispute with regard to Telephone bills, in view of special remedy provided in Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, was not maintainable before consumer fora. In this view of the matter also, while setting aside findings of fora below, we allow this revision, dismissing complaint, with no order as to cost.