1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for parties.

2. Judgment and Order passed by the Commissioner for Employees compensation, Latur (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) in WCA No.160/2013 on 10th June, 2016 is challenged in the present appeal by the original applicant. . For the sake of convenience, appellant is hereinafter referred to as the applicant.

3. The application has been rejected by the learned Commissioner, on the ground of jurisdiction.

4. As contended by the applicant, he met with an accident on 25th August, 2013 during the course of his employment as a driver with Respondent No.1 within the jurisdiction of Wadgaon-Mawal police station and suffered severe injuries. But he filed the application claiming compensation before the Commissioner at Latur since at the time of filing the claim application, he was residing at Latur. The learned Commissioner has held that the applicant has failed in establishing that he had ordinarily resided within the local limits of the geographical jurisdiction of the court of the Commissioner at Latur and hence has dismissed his application for want of jurisdiction, with liberty to him to file the claim petition before the proper forum.

5. Shri Swapnil Rathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, criticized the impugned judgment to be erroneous. The learned counsel submitted that in order to prove that the applicant is residing at Latur, he examined Mrs. Gausiya Sherkhan Pathan, in whose house situated at Chandnagar, Latur, the applicant is residing as a tenant. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner has refused to rely upon the evidence of said Smt. Gausiya Pathan on the ground that she did not produce any document showing her ownership over the property, in question and for want of any rent receipt produced on record. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court has given undue weightage to the facts which have come on record during the course of the cross-examination of the applicant to the effect that he was resident of Mumbai and that his children were taking education at Mumbai. The learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No.1, i.e. owner of the vehicle, admittedly, did not appear before the Commissioner. The learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No.2insurance company though filed its written statement and contested the claim of the applicant on various grounds, did not dispute the averments made by the applicant in para 9 of his application to the effect that he was resident of Latur.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the insurance company did not raise any objection as about the jurisdiction of the Latur court. The learned counsel further submitted that, in fact, since the fact averred by the applicant in his application that he was residing at Latur and hence Latur court was having jurisdiction to entertain his claim, was not denied or disputed by the respondent – insurance company, obviously no issue in regard to the jurisdiction was framed by the court.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that after the evidence of both the sides was closed, the learned Commissioner did frame an additional issue as about jurisdiction and decided it against the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Commissioner has taken a hyper technical view and has misconstrued the provisions under The Employee's Compensation Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Commissioner has also misinterpreted the words 'ordinarily residing'. The learned counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Margina Begum Vs. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 199. The learned counsel inviting my attention to the observations made and the conclusions recorded by the Hon'ble Apex court in paras 8 and 9 of the said judgment, submitted that Section 21(1)(b) of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after referred to as the sai