Both the parties are present through their learned counsels. The learned counsel for the complainant side submitted Petition No.308/09 and prayed for adjournment, which is rejected. Heard the parties on the matter of maintainability of the case and Jurisdiction of this court to try this case.

Heard the learned counsel for the O.P., who submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in

Civil Appeal No.7687/2004

General Manager, Telecom…..Appellant
                    versus

M. Krishnan & another…….Respondent

where the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in view of the 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. In that case, the dispute was regarding telephone connection provided to the Respondent No.1 and for the said nonpayment of the bill, the telephone connection was disconnected. Aggrieved against the said disconnection, the Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode and by order dated 26/11/2001, the consumer forum allowed the complaint and direct the appellant to re-connect the telephone connection and the Respondent No.1 and pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. Against the order of the consumer forum, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. A learned single judge of the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court. The Division Bench felt that the matter required consideration of a larger Bench and hence the matter was placed before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court. By the impugned order of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the Writ Appeal. Hence the appellant is before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of present appeal by special leave in which the Hon’ble Apex Court held that—
“In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided  in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputed in respect of Telephone Bills, then remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred.”

This case is also in respect of nonpayment of the disputed bill and subsequently disconnection of the telephone provided to the complainant by the O.P. Thus, the case law cited by the learned counsel  for the O.P. is squarely applicable in this case and view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.

Hence, the instant case is dismissed on contest. Parties shall bear their own cost.