Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. -the 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 under sec. 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was dismissed. 2. Initially, the petitioner had filed the petition claiming compensation under section 163-A and sec. 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 under sec. 163-A of the act. By virtue of the present application, the petitioner wants to treat the petition under sec. 166 of the Act instead of under sec. 163-A of the Act. 3. Once the petitioner has made a statement to continue the petition under section 163-A of the Act, it is not open to the petitioner to turn out to assert that his claim of compensation be treated under section 166 of the Act. Having elected his remedy to pursue his claim under sec. 163-A of the Act, the petitioner cannot claim compensation now under sec. 166 of the Act. 4. 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. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.