S.S. Subramani, J. - (1.) THIS revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order in I.A. No. 4 of 1997, passed by the presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madras.
(2.) THE first respondent herein has filed an original application before the Tribunal, for recovery of more than Rs. 10 lakhs against the petitioners. It is seen that the petitioners have availed of the loan from the first respondent herein and they defaulted in paying the dues. For securing the loan, the first respondent has taken security from the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of the bank, the security was insured and the necessary policy was also taken from the second respondent herein. While so, the security was lost due to a fire accident. Since the second respondent/insurance company, did not settle the transaction, the petitioners herein moved the consumer forum. The insurance company assessed the damage, and the amount was fixed. The petitioners herein without being satisfied with the assessment, have moved before the National Consumers Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The National Commission has held that since the insurance company has already assessed, and whatever the amount that is to be payable to the petitioner was quantified, and there is no deficiency in service, and since there is an arbitration clause in the insurance policy between the petitioners and the insurance company, it is better for the petitioners to invoke the arbitration clause for deciding the amount payable to them under the policy. While the matter was thus between the petitioners and the insurance company, the first respondent filed the above original application for the recovery of the amount so due to it. At that time, the petitioners herein filed I. A. No. 4 of 1997 to stay all the proceedings in the original application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on February 25, 1997. The same was seriously opposed by the first respondent herein, on the ground that it is not a party to the arbitration agreement, and the matter sought to be arbitrated has nothing to do with the claim in the original application, which is now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and there are no grounds to stay the proceedings. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the application, which is sought to be revised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in this revision.
(3.) AFTER having heard counsel appearing for both the sides, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to any relief in this revision. I give the following reasons for the same.;