The burden of proving inaccuracy in claims for backbilled amounts due to meter tampering lies with the consumer; estimates accepted unless shown to have manifest errors.

[1] The Appellant TNB appealed to this Court as to whether it is entitled to recover from the Respondent Bright Rims Manufacturing Sdn Bhd the loss of revenue estimated to be RM2,031,328.60 due to meter tampering pursuant to ss 38 (3) - (5) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ("the Act").

[2] The Respondent is, at all material times, the customer of the Appellant and having a User Account No 012100200171 for its premises at Lot 9641, Jalan Desa Aman 13, Batu 11, Jalan Kuala Selangor, 47000 Desa Aman, Sungai Buloh, Selangor Darul Ehsan for electricity supply.

[3] The Appellant's investigation team together with the officers of the Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga) inspected the installation of the electricity meter at the Respondent's premises on 15 May 2008 at 11:10 p m and found that there had been tampering of the meter. It was not disputed that the Respondent tampered with the meter and therefore liability cannot be denied.

[4] When demands for payment for the sums backbilled were not met, the Appellant filed civil proceedings against the Respondent on 26 May 2009. The full trial was held on 25^th - 26^th October 2010.

[5] Although the High Court found that the Appellant had the right to claim against the Respondent for the losses incurred due to the tampering of the meter, the High Court dismissed the Appellant's claim and ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

[6] The reasons concerned the computation of the amount recoverable:

(i) TNB initially computed the loss of revenue due to the Respondent's meter tampering to be RM2,363,781.10;

(ii) the amount was re-computed at the trial at the suggestion of the High Court "to remove cuti awam dan hari Ahad apabila kilang telah tidak beroperasi atau beroperasi bukan dengan penuh kapasiti." The sum then arrived at was RM2,031,328.60.

[7] It was the Respondent's argument that the backbill of RM2,031,328.60 was still inaccurate.

[8] It was submitted that the High Court dismissed the claim because of the following finding:

"Walaupun P8 memang lebih tepat dari P6, ia masih tidak mengambilkira tarikh-tarikh dimana kilang tidak beroperasi dengan kapasiti penuh. Ini boleh dilihat dari pemeriksaan balas PW 3 berkaitan corrected graph untuk Mei 2006. PW 3 telah setuju bahawa pada 8 May 2006 sehingga 16 May 2006, kilang hanya beroperasi siang dan telah tutup untuk shif malam. Perlu diingatkan tahun 2006 adalah pada masa kemelesetan ekonomi dan penutupan shif malam merupakan satu perkara yang biasa pada masa itu. Walaubagaimana pun, PW 3 tidak membuat sebarang perubahan kepada corrected graph dalam P6 untuk mengambilkira shut down untuk shif malam. Beliau mengakui tidak membuat perubahan walaupun telah sedar tentang kesilapan di P6 dan P4. Bila ditanya mengapa beliau tidak buat perubahan walaupun diberi peluang untuk berbuat demikian, beliau telah memberi jawapan berikut:

"kerana kadar kW yang diukur di dalam original graph telah secara otomatik mengukur kW yang sebenar keseluruhan kilang"

Mahkamah mendapati jawapan ini tidak dapat difahami dan langsung tidak membantu Mahkamah."

[9] Examination of the grounds of decision (the grounds) shows that the above was para 66 of the grounds. It was after a summation of:

(i) the Appellant's witnesses' testimonies:

i. Zulkiflee bin Umar (PW1), a "Pengawalselia" in the "Jabatan Keselamatan dan Pembekalan Gas" of the Suruhanjaya Tenaga;

ii. Kong Shyang Yan (PW2) the "Jurutera Penjangkaan" in the "Perkhidmatan Penjangkaan Bahagian Pembahagian" of the Appellant;

iii. Anuar bin Hanafiah (PW3) the "Pengurus Kanan (Seal VT)" in the "Jabatan Peningkatan Hasil" of the Appellant; and

iv. Mahsan