JUDGMENT

Background

The plaintiff is the national sewerage services company licensed to provide sewerage services in Malaysia under the Sewerage Services Act 1993 (Act 508) . The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant for arrears of sewerage charges in the sum of RM606,708.80. A statement of account is annexed as schedule A to the Statement of Claim. The said amount is in respect of sewerage charges from January 1998 to 30.6.2003.

The defendant operates a hotel called Hotel Dynasty and claims that the plaintiff never provided any service. In 1997 there were among others complaints regarding overflow of sludges from the sewerage pipes which the plaintiff has failed and/or refused to take any action and attend to the defendant's complaint. The defendant has to engage a private contractor to repair and attend to the their complaints. The defendant denies any liability to pay the plaintiff for such charges. Beside disputing the plaintiff's claim, the defendant claims to have suffered loss of profit and have incurred expenses for desludging works. The loss of profit alleged by the defendant arose from the loss of its hotel guests because of the stench and the foul smell from the sewerage pipes to the hotel premises. By way of counterclaim, the defendant is claiming for RM20,195,283.00 as special damages and is also claiming for general damages, interest and costs.

The evidence

A total of nine witness were called by the plaintiff to support its case. SP1 is a customer service officer. SP1 states that on 20.9.1999 she received a call from one Miss Lim telling her that the defendant is in the process of appealing to DBKL on the status of their premises. During cross examination, she states that the said Miss Lim did discuss about billing arrears and stated the reason for non payment was because of the plaintiff's failure to take any action on the complaints made by the hotel.

SP2 another customer service officer tendered exhibit P1 a document called COE (Customer Operation Enquiry) Job Order issued through the plaintiff's computer, and confirm that the computers are in good working condition. Her cross examination was centered on the fact that between 1998 to 2003 there were complaints from the defendant and the matters were resolved.

SP3 gave evidence that he is a lorry driver cum operator in Indah Water and assisted the other crew members in dealing with complaints regarding blockages of sewerage pipes. Exhibit P2 shows that this witness has attended to the complaint by Hotel Dynasty on 23.11.1998. It took about only 30 - 45 minutes for him and the crew to remedy the complaint of the blockage.

SP4 gave evidence that as a crew of Indah Water he was sent to any premises having complaints against the plaintiff. On 9.9.2001 he was sent to Hotel Dynasty to repair the blockage in the public sewerage pipe and produced a report in Exhibit P3.

SP5 was another lorry driver who also double up as a worker helping his other colleagues in attending to complaints by house owners or the like. Together with the other workers on 5.7.2002 he went to Hotel Dynasty upon receiving a complaint of blockage from the same. The matter was attended to and a report was made and produced as exhibit P4. On 19.8.2003 another complaint was received from Hotel Dynasty and SP5 and his crew went over to attend to the said complaint. Upon arrival at the said hotel the plaintiff's crew found that the blockage occurred not on the public sewerage pipe for which the plaintiff was responsible but occurred at the hotel's private sewerline. The plaintiff's crew therefore did not attend to the complaint and a report was made and produced as exhibit P5.

Next comes SP6, a supervisor in Indah Water who comes to testify that it is part and parcel of the plaintiffs' duty to attend to any complaint from the public regarding blockages in the sewerage system. According to him in 1998 there were two complaints from Hotel Dynasty as shown in the report in P1 and P2. He reiterates that