Judgment :- 1. This Review Application seeking the review of Judgment of this Court dated 08.07.2008 made in C.M.A. No.639 of 2002 came up before me for admission. 2. Upon hearing the submissions made by Mrs. N.B. Surekha, learned counsel for the review applicant and after perusing the grounds of Review Application and the judgment which is sought to be reviewed, the following order is hereby passed: 3. The Insurance Company, which figured as the third respondent in the C.M.A., has forward with the present application seeking review of the judgment on the following grounds: i. Though the applicant/third respondent in the Appeal entered appearance through its counsel Mr. Vijayaraghavan, the Court has recorded that there was no appearance; and ii. In a case of absence of driving license to the driver/rider of the vehicle, the Insurer cannot be mulcted with liability to pay the compensation at the first instance with a liberty to recover the same after such payment from the owner of the vehicle. 4. So far the first ground is concerned, the following facts will show that there is lack of bona fide on the part of the applicant in seeking review of the judgment or rehearing of the Appeal on the ground that the judgment was pronounced ex parte, without noting the appearance made by the applicant through a counsel. When the Appeal stood posted on 15.02.2008, as the applicant-Insurance Company did not enter appearance, one of its panel lawyers Mrs. N.B. Surekha was requested by the Court to take notice on behalf of the Insurance Company. The said Advocate took time upto 07.01.2008 for getting instructions from the applicant and making her submissions. As the said counsel did not file Vakalat even after accepting the request made by the Court, this Court had to once again issue notice to the applicant herein/third respondent in the Appeal. After such notice was issued, the said counsel undertook to file Vakalat and was taking time for getting instructions. However, till 13.06.2008, she did not file any Vakalat; nor did the applicant enter appearance through any other counsel. Therefore, this Court had to direct the Registry to list the matter on 17.06.2008 printing the name of Mrs. N.B. Surekha, Advocate as the counsel representing the applicant herein/third respondent in the appeal along with the explanatory note that no Vakalat was filed. Therefore, this Court had to direct the Registry to list the matter on 17.06.2008 printing the name of Mrs. N.B. Surekha, Advocate as the counsel representing the applicant herein/third respondent in the appeal along with the explanatory note that no Vakalat was filed. This Court had also directed the Registry to print the name of the applicant herein/third respondent. Thus, the case came to be listed on 17.06.2008 and subsequently with such descriptions. 5. However, till the matter was heard on 08.07.2008 and a judgment was pronounced, the applicant/respondent did not enter appearance even though its name was printed in the cause list. The present stand taken by the applicant in the Review Application that they had already instructed Mr. Vijayaraghavan and given Vakalat to him to enter appearance on behalf of the applicant will show that the applicant was served with notice and the applicant had knowledge of the pendency of the Appeal. For the reasons best known to the applicant, no appearance was entered. The applicant has not stated the date on which such Vakalat was filed and the S.R. number assigned to such Vakalat. On verification of record, it is found that no such Vakalat was filed. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the applicant that the judgment pronounced in the Appeal has to be reviewed or that the Appeal should be reheard on the said ground. The first ground alleged deserves to be rejected as untenable. 6. The second ground alleged is that this Court committed an apparent error in arriving at a conclusion that in a case wherein the driver/rider of the vehicle involved in the accident was proved to hold no valid driving license, the insured can be directed to shoulder the liability of the owner of the vehicle with permission to recover the amount after such payment from the insured on the ground that there was violation of a policy condition. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said view was taken by this Court in ignorance of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Meena Variyal, 2007 (2) TN MAC 9 (SC): AIR 2007 SCC 1609. The facts of the said case are different from the facts of the case on hand. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said view was taken by this Court in ignorance of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Meena Variyal, 2007 (2) TN MAC 9 (SC): AIR 2007 SCC 1609. The facts of the said case are different from the facts of the case on hand. The other cases decided by the Supreme Court including, National Insurance Company Limited v. Batjit Kaur and others, 2004 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC): 2004 ACJ 428 and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani, 2004 (2) TN MAC 387 (SC): 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and also a Division Bench of this Court are to the effect that the liability of the Insurer towards the third party shall be intact even if there was a violation of a condition of the insurance contract between the owner and the Insurer. The reason assigned therein was that the compulsory scheme of insurance was introduced to benefit the poor victims who may not be able to recover compensation from the owner of such offending vehicles who may even be a person having meager resources from which the compensation could not be collected. A distinction was also made in the judgment regarding the liability of the Insurer in case of a no coverage of a particular person from the violation of the condition of contract of insurance giving a right to the Insurer to rescind the contract. In the first case the Insurer will not be liable at all as there was no contract covering the risk involved to that person. In the second one, the Insurer shall have only a right to rescind the contract, but however, the Insurer’s liability towards the third party victim shall be intact. In such cases the insurer shall have the right to seek recovery from the inured based on violation of the policy condition. Such a view was taken following the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. 7. In such cases the insurer shall have the right to seek recovery from the inured based on violation of the policy condition. Such a view was taken following the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. 7. The judgment now sought to be relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant is one which dealt with the liability of the Insurer in respect of death of a person who acted as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and who did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Insurer was not liable because it was of the view that the victim himself knew that he was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence and thus in violation of a condition of contract of insurance. The said proposition cannot be extended to other cases of absence of driving licence. Otherwise, the very beneficial legislation which seeks to protect the interest of poor victims, for no fault of their part, will be defeated by a syndicate that may be made by the Insurer and the owner wherein the owner may not have any other asset out of which the compensation can be recovered. That could be the intention of the legislature also. All these points were discussed in detail in the judgment which is now sought to be reviewed. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that this Application for review had to fail even regarding the second ground raised in the Application. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Review Application deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly the same is dismissed.