Petitioner has been duly served by Registered AD post but there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner in the present case has already submitted his written arguments and has prayed that the same be considered by this Commission. 3. We have gone through the record of the case as well as written arguments submitted by the petitioner. 4. Petitioner/Complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the Respondents/Opposite Parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dewas (short, istrict Forum seeking compensation due to deficiency in service as the petitioner SIM card was blocked without any written notice. 5. Respondents filed an application before the District Forum that in view of Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act and in view of the decision of Honle Apex Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Other (2009) 8, SCC 481, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. 6. District Forum vide order dated 8.3.2013, allowed the application of the respondent and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (short, tate Commission which vide its impugned order dated 27.4.2013 dismissed the same. 8. Hence, this revision petition. 9. The Honle Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom (supra) 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. 10. Judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on us. We respectfully follow the same and dismiss the present revision petition. 11. No order as to cost.