Heard. 2. The case of Petitioner/Complainant is that he had purchased a pre-paid connection (Mobile No.9592819159) from the Respondents/Opposite Parties in February, 2011. At the time of purchase, no facilities i.e. caller tone, internet facilities or any other facilities were opted for by the Petitioner. It was stated that when the petitioner found that the entire amount deposited by him for getting his account recharged was being deducted, he approached the customer care of the respondents in August, 2011 to know about the reasons for deduction and was told that the amount had been deducted, as he had availed of the service of caller tone etc., though he had not asked for any such service. It was further stated that due to this wrong deduction by the respondents, the petitioner stopped getting his account recharged. It was further stated that the petitioner had requested the customer care of the respondents a number of times, but no steps were taken to stop the wrong deduction. It was further stated that as the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, he sent a legal notice dated 12.8.2011 to the respondents regarding unwanted caller tone, blocking of unwanted messages and unwanted calls, besides stopping of deduction of the recharge amount, but to no avail. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. Joint reply was filed by the respondents, wherein, they took up a preliminary objection, that the complaint was not maintainable, as per law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as eneral Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & Another (2009) 8 SCC, 481 wherein it was held that when there is a special remedy provided under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, regarding the disputes with regard to the telephone bills, this Forum will have no jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to adjudicate upon the dispute. It was denied that the petitioner received any unwanted calls and messages on his mobile No.9592819159. It was further stated that the petitioner did not subscribe to o not disturb(DND) service on his number till date. It was admitted that the mobile connection was issued to the petitioner. It was further stated that the petitioner got his caller tone service activated by way of SMS on 18.5.2011. All other allegations, levelled by the petitioner, in the complaint were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that decision of General Manager, Telecom (supra) is completely distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein, the dispute between the parties was with respect to the non-payment of telephone bills and disconnection thereof. However, in the present case the dispute between the parties is in respect of deficient in service and unfair trade practices being adopted by the respondent, as there was acute failure on the part of the respondent to de-activate the alleged services which were never opted by the petitioner. Further, the consumer forums have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such nature of disputes regarding unfair trade practice and acute deficiency in service. In support, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon certain judgments, which read as under ; (i) J.K.Mittal Vs. U.O.I. & Ors., AIR 2012 Delhi 94 ; (ii) Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., 2004 (1) SCC 305 and (iii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jagdamba Rice Mills, I (1992) CPJ 90 (NC). 5. Since, the petitioner had raised dispute with regard to Mobile Telephone Services, the Honle Apex Court, in eneral Manager, Telecom (supra) has held ; . 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. 6. We do not find any substance in this submission. Judgment of the 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.