Hemant Gupta, J.@mdashThe challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 24.5.2005, whereby an application of the claimant-petitioner to treat the same u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed.
2. Initially, the petitioner had field the petition claiming compensation u/s 163A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). But on 24.11.2003, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made a statement to pursue the petition u/s 163A of the Act. By virtue of the present application, the petitioner wants to treat the petition u/s 166 of the Act instead of u/s 163-A of the Act.
3. Once the petition has made a statement to continue the petition u/s 163A of the Act, it is not open to the petitioner to turn out to assert that his claim of compensation be treated u/s 166 of the Act.
4. Having elected his remedy to pursue his claim u/s 163-A of the Act, the petitioner cannot claim compensation now u/s 166 of the Act.
5. Consequently, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
