Claims for loss of revenue under the Electricity Supply Act require specific legal pleadings, and unlawful inspections do not invalidate all gathered evidence in civil cases.

[1] The Plaintiff's claim is for the sum of RM1,632,564.29 as back billing charges. The claim is denied with the Defendant counterclaiming for the sum of RM5,382,139.56 and USD85,000.00 for losses allegedly suffered as a result of the Plaintiff's disconnection of electricity supply to the Defendant's premises.

A. Factual Background

[2] The Plaintiff is a company which supplies electricity power in Malaysia and is a licensee under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 . Pursuant to a written contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied electricity to the Defendant's premise at PT3838 Kolam Udang, Mukim Api-Api, Kg Assam Jawa, 45700 Kuala Selangor, Selangor Darul Ehsan (the said premise). The Defendant runs a factory which processes and freezes shrimps which it sells both locally and abroad at the said premise.

[4] On 16 March 2011, the Plaintiff carried out another inspection [2nd inspection]. At this 2nd inspection, the Plaintiff discovered that there was mark left on the TNB sticker which suggested that it has been tampered with that the power reading on the red phase of the main meter is 0 amp whilst for the yellow and blue phases the readings are in reverse; that the current readings for all three phases of the check meter is 0 amp, the voltage reading for the yellow phase is 0 volt; and the neon fuse of the yellow phase had blown.

[5] The Plaintiff made separate police reports on 28 January 2012 and 11 May 2005 in which it claimed that there was tampering with the meter on both occasions. The Plaintiff claimed that both inspections found that the meter at the said premise had failed to record accurate readings of electricity usage as a result of the said tampering. The readings did not correspond to the actual electricity power supplied and consumed at the Defendant's said premise at the material time. In the 1st inspection, the percentage of error was -90.657% (main meter) and -90.663% (check meter). In the 2nd inspection, the percentage of error was -100% (main meter) and -100% (check meter). These findings were duly recorded by the Plaintiff. After each inspection and discovery, the meters were reset.

[6] According to the Plaintiff, this meant that the monthly billings that were sent differed from the billings which ought to have been issued by the Plaintiff. In other words, the Defendant has been under billed as compared to the actual amount of electricity supplied. For the 1st inspection, a sum ofRM1,579,981.35 had not been billed for the period from 3 May 2007 to 26 January 2011; whilst in the case of the 2nd inspection, a sum of RM52,582.94 had not been billed for the period from 26 January 2011 to 16 March 2011.

[7] Despite several notices, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant refused to settle the total outstanding back charge sum of RM1,632,564.29.

[8] The Defendant had a different version of the facts. Insofar as the 1st inspection is concerned, the Defendant that at around 4.30 am of 26 January 2011, whilst its factory and office was closed, without any prior notice or consent of the Defendant and without any authority cards shown to the Defendant at the material time, the Plaintiff's employees trespassed the Defendant's premises, broke the Defendant's gate, broke the lock to the meter room, prohibited the Defendant's workers anywhere near the meter room, and forced a visitor to sign its documents. The Defendant claimed that the Plai