Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud JC:

1. Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Learned Magistrate which allowed the claims by the Plaintiff / Respondent for the sum of RM12,003-00 and the interest at the rate of 5% pa from the date of the judgment to the date of full and final settlement.

[2] I shall refer to parties as they were in the trial at the 1st instance before the Learned Magistrate.

2. The Background Facts Of The Appeal

[3] The Plaintiff's claim as per their Statement of Claim ('SOC') dated 4 July 2018 is for sum of RM15,536-40 for logistic services rendered from 7 June 2017 to 21 June 2017 to the Defendant.

[4] It is undisputed fact that the Plaintiff has rendered such services.

[5] The Appellant / Defendant vide their Statement of Defence ('SOD')dated 27 August 2018 pleaded that they have paid whatever amount due to one Chin Chee Yong whom they further pleaded to be the Plaintiff's employee and/or de-facto director of the Plaintiff.

[6] After full trial, the Learned Magistrate ordered the Appellant / Defendant to pay a sum of RM12,003-00 to the Plaintiff after deducting RM3,533.40 undisputed contra amount.

3. The Issues In This Appeal.

[7] The issues in this appeal are as follows:

3.1 whether the Notes in the invoices which are allegedly not pleaded may be taken into account by this Court

3.2 whether computer generated documents must be accompanied by a certificate under s 90A Evidence Act before it may be admitted in evidence

3.3 whether payment to a third party is sufficient to satisfy the debt claimed when it contrary to Parole Evidence (s 91 & 92 EA )

[8] We shall deal with the grounds accordingly.

3.1 Whether The Notes In The Invoices Which Are Allegedly Not Pleaded May Be Taken Into Account By This Court

[9] In grounds 2 and 3 of their Memorandum of Appeal, the Appellant / Defendant contend that they were ambushed at trial with regard to the 1Notes' of payment instruction. The 1Notes' appeared in all the Plaintiff's invoices are standard notes with regard to the method of payment to be made. They are as follow:

NOTES:

Please make your cheque payable to

SIM LIM MINING SDN BHD

PUBLIC BANK PERMAS JAVA, JOHOR, MALAYSIA

ACCOUNT NO: 319 379 2208

[10] There were 3 invoices altogether (invoices number 00000260, 00000298 and 00000307) all which have been delivered to the Appellant / Defendant vide the Plaintiff's Solicitor Notice of Demand (NOD) dated 7 May 2018. Each of these invoices contained the 1Notes' of payment instruction.

[11] The NOD with its enclosures were posted by registered post to the Appellant / Defendant at their registered address and business address. SD1 admitted whilst under cross-examination she received it together with its enclosures at the Defendant's business address in Mount Austin.

Peg. Plaintif: Okey, Miss Chua boleh tak Miss Chua tengok dokumen yang sama daripada ms 13 sehingga 22, ini dokumen yang telah ditandakan sebagai P6 7 Mei 2018 yang dihantarkan peguamcara Plaintif kepada Defendan di dua alamat, betul.

SD1: Saya cuma terima dekat Mount Austin, yang itu secretary saya

[12] Permit us to pause for a while and prove the Defendant's tendency of untruthfulness to the Court. If we compare the pleadings with respect to the same issue, they initially denied receiving the NOD:

(1) Statement of Claim

5. Oleh itu, Plaintif telahpun melalui peguamcaranya menghantar notis tuntutan bertarikh 7 Mei 2018 kepada Defendan dengan melampirkan kesemua dokumen tuntutan bayaran meminta agar Defendan menjelaskan bayaran berjumlah RM15,536.40 terbabit dalam tempoh 14 hari. Namun, Defendan masih terns enggan gagal dan/atau abai untuk melunaskannya lalu mengakibatkan Plaintif menanggung kerugian.

(2) SOD

10 Defendan menafikan perenggan 5 dan 6 Pernyataan Tuntutan

[13] Upon being confronted under cross-examination, SD1 admitted to the Court to have received such notice together with all the invoices. Thus, the Defendant's defence is destroyed by SDTs testimony. This translate the defence into a lie.

[14] In the