TAN NGEE HIONG TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

TAN NGEE HIONG TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

The magistrate's finding was plainly wrong because TNB failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendant committed the tampering or that the claimed period (from 29.5.2018) applied to him; TNB did not produce the required written statement under s38(4) or adequately explain the backbilling calculation; the recoverable loss was limited to the period the defendant occupied the premises (18.7.2018–20.8.2018) resulting in RM11,671.45, and costs of RM5,000 were awarded to the defendant.

Citation
BA-11BNCvC-25-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Tan Ngee Hiong; Plaintiff/respondent: Tenaga Nasional Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 August 2023
Case Number
BA-11BNCvC-25-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; magistrate's decision set aside in part and claim reduced to amount computed for period 18.7.2018 to 20.8.2018 (RM11,671.45); costs RM5,000 to defendant
Legal Topics
Meter Tampering, Loss of Revenue, Backbilling, Prima Facie Statement Under S38(4), Inspection Procedure and Natural Justice, Calculation of Quantum
Source Language
Malay/English
Electricity Law Evidence Administrative Law Contract Meter Tampering Loss of Revenue Backbilling Prima Facie Statement Under S38(4) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Ngee Hiong

Defendant/appellant

Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff proved on balance of probabilities commission of an offence under s37 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 and identity of the person who tampered with the meter
  2. 2 Whether a written statement under s38(4) Act 447 was produced and sufficed as prima facie evidence
  3. 3 Whether the quantum and period of backbilling were properly calculated (including start date of liability)

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's finding was plainly wrong because TNB failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendant committed the tampering or that the claimed period (from 29.5.2018) applied to him; TNB did not produce the required written statement under s38(4) or adequately explain the backbilling calculation; the recoverable loss was limited to the period the defendant occupied the premises (18.7.2018–20.8.2018) resulting in RM11,671.45, and costs of RM5,000 were awarded to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; magistrate's decision set aside in part and claim reduced to amount computed for period 18.7.2018 to 20.8.2018 (RM11,671.45); costs RM5,000 to defendant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part
  • Claim by plaintiff varied to amount for period 18.7.2018–20.8.2018: RM11,671.45