Both sides are present today. On 9.5.2017, we heard submission of Ld.advocate Mr.Arupjyoti Rajkhowa for the opp.party (petitioner) on Petition No.611/13 and of Ld.advocate Mr.Bimal Sarma for the complainant who has filed objection against that petition.

We have perused the submission of both sides' Ld.counsels' forwarded for and against Petition No.611/13 through which the opp.party namely, the Manager, Aircel ,G.S.Road, prays for dismissing the complaint on the ground that this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the instant dispute. We have perused the original complaint and found that as per the complaint, that dispute is that the complainant had recharged his Cell No.9854412340 ( sim issued by aircel, the opp.party) vide Transaction No. ASR 120924120511002424 on 24.9.2011 and  at that moment, his balance was Rs.185.53 INR with validity upto 22 Dec.2012, but his said prepaid connection was disconnected by the opp.party without any reason on 10.12.12 which was about 12 days before the expiry date, which they cannot do.Thus, it is seen that the dispute is a dispute relating to billing of mobile connection to the hand-set of complainant through the opp.party  . As per complainant the disconnection is illegal and that is why he is entitled to get the re-connection alongwith compensation. The contention of the petitioner (opp.party) is that they are doing business of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service under the licence granted by Telecommunication Department, Govt.of India under the provision of Sec.4 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act,1933; and in accordance with the guidelines/regulations/ directives issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India constituted to regulate the mobile telephone and allied services under the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act,1997; and accordingly, the disputes in respect of telephone bills between the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service as well as their consumers, special remedy provided in Sec.7 B of Indian Telegraph Act, and remedy under Consumer Protect Act is barred by implication. The another contention of the complaint is that Dishnet Wireless Ltd, Chennai, Circle Officer, G.S.Road, Ulubari and Sri Mintu Sarma, S/O  Sri Hem Chandra Sarma are a necessary party in this proceeding without making them the opp.parties, the allegations raised by the

 opp.party vide petition No. 611/13 cannot be disposed of. Ld. advocate Mr. Arupjyoti Rajkhowa forwarding his submission in favour of the opp.party on Petition No.611 refers to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004-General Manager, Telecom -vs-M.Krishan .& Anr.(2009) (8 SCC 481), Ld. advocate Mr. Rajkhowa further submits that as per the article 144 of the Constitution of India, this Forum is bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court of the above said case and thereby , it has to dismiss the complaint . Ld advocate Mr.Rajkhowa also refer the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1703/2010 - Prakash Verma- vs-IDEA Cellular Ltd. and another and submits that Hon'ble National Commission also in delivering the judgment relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted above. Ld.advocate Mr   Rajkhowa also refers that the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.701/2011 (Moniram Parekh -vs-BSNL and others), the decision of the Hon'ble State Commission, West Bengal in SC Case No. FA/281/11 as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in G.M.Telecommunication, BSNL, Agartala and others-vs- Swapan Kr.Bhattacharayya (AIR 2012 Guwahati 156) .

After perusal of the case laws referred by the Ld counsel of the opp.party, it is found that Hon'ble Supreme court in General Manager, Telecom,. (Appellant) -vs- M .Krishan and  another (Respondent) Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004 holds that while there is a special remedy provided in Sec.7-I3 of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone billing, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred, and the consumer has to recourse to Sec.7-B of Indian Telegraph Act and the dispute shall be determined by arbitration by the arbitrator appointed by the Central Government, and the award of the such arbitrator shall be conclusive between the parties to the disputes and shall not be question in any court. In Prakash Verma (petitioner) —vs- Idea Cellular Ltd. (Respondent) and another (Rev.Petition No. 1703/2010) Hon'ble National Commission observes that the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom —vs- • N.Krishnan and another (2009) (8) SCC 481 wherein it has been held that in dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceeding only, is binding on subordinate courts. Hon'ble National Commission also in Revision Petition No. 701/2011 (Mani Ram Pareek) (petitioner)-vs- Bharat Sansar Nigam Ltd. and another 4, observes that in dispute relating to telephone tariff/bills, the remedy would avail, in accordance with Supreme Court ruling in General Manager, Telecom (Appellant-vs-M.Krishan and another (Respondent) (Civil Appeal No. 7687/2004, under the provision of Sec.7 -B of Indian Telegraph Act,1885.

Therefore ,We hold that the dispute between the parties in our hand, which is dispute in respect of bill amount of the cellular phone of the complainant No. 98544-12340 and disconnection of the facility by the opp.party is a dispute which is to be disposed of under the provision of Sec.7 B of Indian Telegraph Act,1885 i.e. the dispute shall be determined by arbitrator appointed by the Central Government and this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicaite upon the said dispute . Accordingly, we hold that the complaint as filed against the opp.party is not maintainable on the ground that this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such dispute; Accordingly, the petition No. 611/13 is allowed and the complaint is  dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The complainant may take resort to Sec.7 B of Indian Telegraph Act.