Serial No. 42 SUPPL. CAUSE LIST-I HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP 17/2026 In [FAO(D) 8/2025] Tahira Bano …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. H. Furrahi, Advocate Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 12.05.2026 01. This is a review petition filed by the petitioner for seeking review of the judgment dated 7th April, 2026, passed in FAO(D) No. 8/2025 in case titled “Tahira Bano Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited and Anr.”, whereby this Court dismissed the appeal after finding no legal and factual infirmity in the award passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [“the Commission”]. 02. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record which would persuade us to recall the order dated 7th April, 2026. The order sought to be reviewed is based on the material on record. The Commission had no other evidence except the report of the Surveyor and, accordingly, the Commission accepted the report and awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 31,500/- in the absence of any counter evidence brought on record by the petitioner. We find no illegality or perversity in the approach adopted by the Commission in relying upon the report of the Surveyor while passing the award. MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 13.05.26 03. We had fully concurred with the reasoning given and the conclusions arrived at by the Commission and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7th April, 2026. The petitioner has been held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 04. Despite the vehement submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we could not find any error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the matter be remanded back to the Commission to enable the petitioner to lead fresh evidence. We are not inclined to accept the contention, inasmuch as, much water has flown since the passing of the award. Ample opportunities had already been afforded to the petitioner by the Commission to substantiate his claim by leading cogent evidence, which the petitioner failed to avail. 05. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this review petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 12.05.2026 “Mir Arif” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 13.05.26