Heard. 2. In the present case, Petitioner/Complainant has raised certain disputes in respect of his mobile phone bills issued to him. 3. District Forum vide its order dated 9.9.2010 allowed the complaint of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondents/opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. 5. State Commission vide its order dated 1.12.2010 allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner with liberty to approach the Authority mentioned in the decision of the Honle Apex Court, in eneral Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 481 6. In M.Krishnan (supra), Apex Court has laid down that ; . 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 ; -B :- Arbitration of Disputes (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if 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 determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (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. In Thiruvalluvar Tranasport Corpn. V. Consumer Protection Council, it was held that the ational 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. 7. We do not find any substance in the complaint of the petitioner. Judgment of Honle Supreme Court is binding on us. We respectfully follow the same and dismiss the revision petition leaving it open to the petitioner to get the law declared from the Honle Supreme Court of India.