JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is a First Appeal From Order filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 2. The appellant Insurance Company assails the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Agra in W.C.A. No. 176 of 2008 whereby it has been made liable to pay a compensation of Rupees Four lacs twenty seven thousand one hundred and forty to the claimants for the death of Sri Dharamvir Singh alias Naresh in the accident that occurred on 22.9.2008 at Railway Crossing Mursan within the District of Hathras. 3. Sri V. K. Birla, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the factum of the deceased’s involvement in the alleged accident of 22.9.2008 was not proved, that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Agra had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim, that the driver had no valid driving license to drive a Tanker and that the amount of compensation has been illegally granted. 4. We have considered the submission of Sri Birla and perused the record. In so far as the first submission is concerned the owner of the Tanker has in the written statement admitted that the deceased driver was under her employment at the time of the accident, that the vehicle and driver were duly injured and that she had knowledge of the accident. As such when no collusion between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle/employer has been proved then the factum of the accident was duly proved and such finding of fact recorded in the impugned order does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 5. The submission on the issue of territorial jurisdiction is that the Compensation Commissioner, Agra had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition because the accident did not take place within his territorial jurisdiction. The claimants had pleaded that after the death of Dharmvir Singh they shifted residence to Mathura with the family of the deceased who are also providing all their expenses. 6. Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 read as quoted hereunder : “21. The claimants had pleaded that after the death of Dharmvir Singh they shifted residence to Mathura with the family of the deceased who are also providing all their expenses. 6. Section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 read as quoted hereunder : “21. Venue of proceedings and transfer.—[(1) Where any matter under this Act is to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made hereunder, be done by or before the Commissioner for the area in which— (a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or (b) the workman or in case of his death, the dependant claiming the compensation ordinarily resides; or (c) the employer has his registered office: Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned: Provided further that, where the workman, being the master of a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of an aircraft or a workman in a motor vehicle or a company, meets with the accident outside India any such matter may be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the owner or agent of the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle resides or carries on business or the registered office of the company is situate, as the case may be. (1-A) If a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner with whom any money has been deposited under section 8, proceeds with a matter under this Act, the former may for the proper disposal of the matter call for transfer of any records or money remaining with the latter and on receipt of such a request, he shall comply with the same.] (2) If a Commissioner is satisfied [that any matter arising out of any proceedings pending before him] can be more conveniently dealt with by any other Commissioner, whether in the same State or not, he may, subject to rules made under this Act, order such matter to be transferred to such other Commissioner either for report or for disposal, and, if he does so, shall forthwith transmit to such other Commissioner all documents relevant for the decision of such matter and, where the matter is transferred for disposal, shall also transmit in the prescribed manner any money remaining in his hands or invested by him for the benefit of any party to the proceedings: [Provided that the Commissioner shall not, where any party to the proceedings has appeared before him, make any order of transfer relating to the distribution among dependants of a lump sum without giving such party an opportunity of being heard.] (3) The Commissioner to whom any matter is so transferred shall, subject to rules made under this Act, inquire thereinto and, if the matter was transferred for report, return his report thereon or, if the matter was transferred for disposal, continue the proceedings as if they had originally commenced before him. (4) On receipt of a report from a Commissioner to whom any matter has been transferred for report under sub-section (2), the Commissioner by whom it was referred shall decide the matter referred in conformity with such report. (5) [The State Government may transfer any matter from any Commissioner appointed by it to any other Commissioner appointed by it.]” 7. In the present case there is no dispute that the accident occurred within the district of Hathras and therefore the Commissioner at Hathras also had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. But the claim petition was filed at Agra because the claimants claims to be living at Mathura with the family of the deceased. In the present case there is no dispute that the accident occurred within the district of Hathras and therefore the Commissioner at Hathras also had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. But the claim petition was filed at Agra because the claimants claims to be living at Mathura with the family of the deceased. The expression ‘ordinarily resides’ used in Section 21 means where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time of filing the claim petition. The claim petition was filed and entertained at Agra in view of such fact which was not rebutted by the Insurance Company and therefore the Commissioner at Agra had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 8. On the submission that the driver had no valid driving license the facts reveal that the deceased was the driver. A driver usually carries his driving license and is supposed to keep it while driving a vehicle. The driver met with an accident with a train and it has been pleaded that the driving license was lost since after the accident it could not be found. Under such circumstances the possibility that the driving license was lost at the time of the accident cannot be ruled out. Therefore such presumption has to be drawn and it cannot be held that the deceased was not having a valid driving license. 9. Lastly Sri Birla has assailed the quantum of compensation to state that there was no evidence regarding the amount of salary being received by the deceased. The claimants submitted that he was being paid Rs. 5000/- per month plus rupees One hundred as daily allowance. The owner of the vehicle/ employer of the deceased stated that he was being paid Rs. 3800/- per month. The Commissioner adopted the pay structure of the Transport Department and found that the deceased was entitled to Rs. 3290/- plus Rs. 976.92p. as allowance-Total Rs. 4266.92p. per month. Holding the age of the deceased as 27 years the compensation was calculated on the basis of Rs. 4000/- per month. Such conclusion cannot be held to be illegal. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case no substantial question of law arises in this appeal which could warrant interference in the impugned order. 11. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed. 12. No order is passed as to costs. ————