JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J.—The claimants have filed this appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the rejection of their claim by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal of Cuttack. 2. The claimants are father and mother of a young school-going boy aged around 12 years who was run over by a truck bearing registration number 4857 at about 4. p.m. on 22.5.1974. The said truck was carrying a load of stone to the backyard of one Kantha Pradhan of village Khajuriapada in Baidyeswar Police station of the district of Cuttack. It is alleged that the land of Kantha Pradhan is at a level three feet higher than one neighbouring land and when the truck was attempting to negotiate for the climb, it rolled back and ran over Rabindranath Hati. He was crushed under the rear wheel of the truck. The claimants laid claim for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- alleging gross negligence on the part of the truck driver. Since the vehicle was insured, the insurer was also noticed in the case. 3. Several defences were taken by the owner and the insurer in their separate written statements. The plea of negligence of the driver was seriously disputed and it was contended that the truck was not being driven on the rear gear but it rolled back from not being able to climb the height. The driver was trying to look forward for negotiating the climb and there was no justification for the deceased boy to be so close to the truck. It was also pleaded that the deceased was attempting to get on to the back side of the truck and had slipped down. 4. The learned Tribunal came to hold that the Appellants were at best entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,000/-, but on the merit of the claim, he held that there was no negligence of the driver and the insurer was not liable because the vehicle was being driven not on a public place at the time of accident. Accordingly the claim has been dismissed. 5. Though in the claim petition, the claimants had stated that the vehicle was being driven on the rear gear, by evidence it has now been established that the truck was not able to climb up to the land of Kantha Pradhan and rolled back. Accordingly the claim has been dismissed. 5. Though in the claim petition, the claimants had stated that the vehicle was being driven on the rear gear, by evidence it has now been established that the truck was not able to climb up to the land of Kantha Pradhan and rolled back. No adverse inference should have been drawn against the claimants because the basic allegation that the accident took place when the vehicle was rolling back is not disputed. Whether the rear gear had been put or the vehicle was rolling back because it failed to get up to the high land was a matter within the special knowledge of the Respondents. The assertion in the claim petition was, however, not false. Law is settled that when the vehicle moves back, greater burden lies on the driver to ensure that nothing untoward happens. Under Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, special provision has been made for this by incorporating Rule 166. A Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ismail v. State 17 (1951) C.L.T. 259, on the basis of the said rule has observed that the driver has the peremptory duty of satisfying himself before backing the vehicle that the ground to the rear is clear enough for backing so as not to cause any danger or undue inconvenience to any person. Even if in the present case the driver was not consciously driving backwards, when he realised that the vehicle was rolling down it was his duty to take special care and if necessary to blow the horn and shout out so that any body on the back side would get notice of the predicament. It was open to the driver to apply his brakes so that the vehicle would stop rolling without notice to the persons behind. The evidence is silent on this aspect. That there has been negligence on the part of the driver at the time the vehicle rolled down is thus well established. The claimants, therefore, became entitled to compensation on account of such negligence. 6. The only other question that remains for consideration is as to whether the Insurer would have no responsibility under the statute. The policy bond has not been produced. The claimants, therefore, became entitled to compensation on account of such negligence. 6. The only other question that remains for consideration is as to whether the Insurer would have no responsibility under the statute. The policy bond has not been produced. Though u/s 95 of the Act, the Insurer's liability by statute is in respect of driving of the vehicle in a public place, there is no bar to the Insurer covering the liability for any accident. Exclusion of liability had to be pleaded by the Insurer. In its written statement, no such specific plea had been raised. It is also not known as to whether the place where the accident took place was a public place or not. Certainly the place where the accident took place was not the backyard of Kantha Pradhan. The vehicle had yet to reach it. The evidence is not clear on the nature of the land where the accident took place and that is on account of the Insurer failing to lead positive evidence to support what it wants to contend now. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to accept the stand of the Insurer that it has no liability. It would be appropriate to proceed on the footing, in view of the admitted position that the vehicle had been insured with the Insurer, that the liability of the owner will have to be met by the Insurer. 7. I accordingly fix the compensation at rupees three thousand with interest at six per cent from the date of the application and hold that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the same and by statute that liability has to be met by the Insurer. There would be no order for costs.