K. Ramaswamy, J. — We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.

2. Both the appeals are heard and disposed of together since claims arising out of them arise out of the same cause of action.

3. These appeals arise from the orders dated January 12, 1995 of the National Consumer Redressal Commission (the “Commission”, for short) made in Original Petition Nos. 62 and 102 of 1993. Admittedly, the respondent was holding two policies. First policy covered the period from March 31,1986 to March 31,1987 and the second policy covered the period from April 1, 1987 to March 31,1988. During the said period, admittedly, due to the employees’ strike the leather in process was damaged due to the spoilage. The respondent laid claims for damages caused during the first period for a sum of Rs. 4,99,453.23 and for the second period for Rs. 5,000/- amount to the total of Rs. 5,04,453.23 with interest from the date of the claim. The Tribunal accepted the claim and directed payment of the said amount with interest @ 18% from one month after the date of the claim. The respondent’s appeal Nos. 11443-44/95, though arise from the impugned order, is for the claim of consequential loss in the sum of Rs.