[1] The background facts of this appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below could be summarised as follows.

[2] At all material times, the appellant was a national electricity supplier whilst the respondent was its customer. Sometime in 1996, the respondent successfully applied to the appellant for the supply of electricity to be upgraded from 610kW to 1210kW. On 15 August 1996, the parties entered into a fresh contract for the supply of electricity. It was not in dispute that after the upgrade of the supply, the respondent duly paid all electricity bills without fail, as and when issued. In January 2003, the appellant "discovered" that the respondent had been undercharged for a period of [73] months, that is, from October 1996 to October 2002, due entirely to the application of a wrong meter multiplying constant (multiplier) by the appellant. The correct multiplier should have been 100 instead of 50. By reason of the application of the wrong multiplier, the respondent was undercharged a total of RM581,876.77 (shortfall). On 15 Novemb