Judgment B.B. Vagyani, President, J.—This appeal filed by LIC of India is directed against the order dated 19.03.2003 passed in execution proceeding by Additional District Consumer Forum Pune. Additional District Consumer Forum Pune directed LIC of India to extend accident benefit arising out of two policies of deceased Hemant Kelkar together with interest @ 9% p.a 2. We heard the learned Advocate Mr. Rajiv Chavan for the appellant and respondent in person. Respondent/Orgional complainant is the nominee of insured Hemant Kelkar, who is no more alive. Deceased had taken two Endownment Assurance policies with accident benefit under Salary Saving Scheme. Sum assured was Rs. 50,000/- each. Insured died in an accident. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated and therefore, nominee field consumer complaint No. 381/98. Said complaint was resisted by the LIC of India. Forum below by order dated 05.07.2002 allowed the complaint and directed LIC of India to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- against tow policies of deceased Hemant Kelkar to the nominee along with interest @ 9% p.a. 3. LIC of India did not challenge the award passed by the Forum below. Similarly nominee of the policies did not file appeal against the award dated 05.07.2002 for having denied accident benefit. Thus the award dated 05.07.2002 achieved finality. Original complainant field Execution Application No. 31/2002 before the Consumer Forum and thereby claimed accident benefit, which was impliedly denied by the Forum below. LIC of India complied with the award dated 05.07.2002. LIC of India paid in all Rs. 1,56,800/- to the complainant by cheque on 05.12.2002. The forum below entertained the prayer of the complainant for accident benefit and passed the impugned order whereby LIC of India is directed to extend accident benefit of two policies to the complainant. 4. The Forum below relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shahid Bhagatsingh Housing Society vs. Improvement Trust, 2000 (3) SCC 325 and concluded that error committed by the Forum below can be rectified at the subsequent stage. The view taken by the Forum below in the matter of review is wrong. The apparent typographical or arithmetical mistakes can be rectified. Forum below is not permitted in law to review its own order. Forum below in the form of miscellaneous application entertained a review application and has thus committed illegality. District Consumer Forums are not armed with power of review. The apparent typographical or arithmetical mistakes can be rectified. Forum below is not permitted in law to review its own order. Forum below in the form of miscellaneous application entertained a review application and has thus committed illegality. District Consumer Forums are not armed with power of review. This is made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyotsna Shah vs. Bombay Hospital, 1999 (4) SCC 325 and also by the National Commission in the case of M/s Scooter India Ltd. vs. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, 1986-2002 NC & SC on CC (IV) 6298. Mistake rectified by the Forum below is not a typographical or arithmetical mistake. Forum below could have extended the accident benefit to the complainant while passing earlier award dated 05.07.2002. It is admitted fact that original complainant did not file any appeal. Forum below has expressed a wrong view to the effect that the original complainant need not prefer an appeal to the State Commission. In case of implied denial of accident benefit, the person aggrieved has to exhaust remedy of appeal. Remedy of review by District Consumer Forum is not recognised by Consumer Law. This conclusion drawn by the Forum below is contrary to the well settled legal position. Forum below has exceeded its jurisdiction. District Consumer Forum lacks the inherent jurisdiction it with regard to review. Under the circumstances, impugned order under challenge cannot be sustained in law. In the result, we pass the following order:— Order 1. Appeal is allowed 2. Impugned order dated 19.03.2003 passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum Pune in Misc., Application No. 31/2002 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.