Complainant/respondent had taken telephone connection from Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, the appellant herein. The number of the telephone was 3311735. Complainant/respondent received a bill for Rs.9,96,841.00 for the billing cycle of two months -2- from 16.02.1996 to 15.04.1996 dated 01.05.1996. Respondent alleged that the bill was on the higher side; that in the said two months, there were only 50 working days and each day had 10 working hours; that the bill showed 6,78,402 gross calls made from the telephone during the above period. The above noted calls come to 13,568 calls per day and 1,356 calls per hour which meant that the calls had been made after every 2.65 seconds which was unthinkable and impossible. In order to avoid disconnection, respondent paid Rs.2,20,402/-. As the appellant failed to correct the bill, respondent filed the complaint before the State Commission. State Commission disposed of the complaint with the following observations:- “Counsel for the OP states that one call to UK or USA is equivalent to 150 local calls. Even if this contention is accepted still the fact remains that as many as 13500 calls per day and 1366 calls per hour were made, which does not inspire confidence. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the complaint, quash the bill in question with the direction to the OP to raise a revised bill for the disputed period on the basis of average bill received by the complainant during past six months preceding to the said period and shall pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation. If any payment has been made in excess of the revised bill, the OP shall refund the same to the complainant. This bill will be raised by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of this order, without levying any LPSC.” Counsel for the appellant relying upon judgment of Supreme Court in “General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 481” contends that the complaint filed by the appellant was not maintainable. We find substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. In the aforesaid judgment, Supreme Court has held that in view of Section 7-B of Telegraph Act, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. Relevant observations are as under: 5. In our opinion 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. 6. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:- “S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in 3 this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the -4- determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (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 Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules. 8. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach. 4 In Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council (1995) 2 SCC 479 it was held that the National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents. We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment. 9. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 26.11.2001. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs. The law laid down by Supreme Court is binding on this Tribunal. Respectfully following the same, the appeal is allowed, order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed. -5- However, liberty is reserved with the respondent/complainant to seek redressal of its grievance from the civil court along with an application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking exclude of the time spent in the consumer fora while calculating the limitation in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.” | 
