A party's claim for electricity charges based on an agreed recalculation method is valid, and internal disputes do not negate contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT

(After A Full Trial)

Yong Leou Shin SCJ:

A. Introduction

[1] This is a dispute concerns a claim over the recalculation of electricity consumption charges and the repair costs of the Original Substation made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

[2] After full trial, this court allowed the Plaintiff's claim in full. Dissatisfied, the Defendant filed an appeal against the court's decision.

[3] The relevant cause papers filled and marked in this trial are:

[4] The following are the witness statements that were tendered and marked as evidence during the trial:

B. Facts Based On Plaintiff's Claim

(i) Electricity Charges

[5] The dispute arose as a result of a shared TNB account which supply power to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

[6] The Plaintiff was the owner of 4 pieces of land known as PT54753, PT54755, Lot 4998, Lot 5017 in which a substation was originally built to supply electricity to the 4 lands. The substation is located at PT54755 ("the Original Substation") and the Plaintiff was the account holder for the Original Substation.

[7] On 1 August 2013, PT54755 and Lot 4998 were sold by the Plaintiff to the Defendants and vacant possession was given to the Defendant on 1 September 2013.

[8] Pending a new substation to be installed, the Original Substation continued to supply power to the 4 lands and the charges will be borne by parties respectively.

[9] As the Original Substation was registered under the Plaintiff's name, the Plaintiff will pay the electricity charges and the Defendant will reimburse the Plaintiff, the portion of its usage.

[10] It was agreed between the parties by their respective conduct that the Defendant will reimburse the Plaintiff the electricity consumed by the Defendant based on the calculation done by the Plaintiff.

[Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, para 12]

[11] Since September 2013, the Defendant had paid to the Plaintiff the sum of RM984,892.18 for September 2013 until November 2016, save for the electricity charges for September 2016.

[Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, para 9]

[12] On around July 2017, a submeter was installed by the Defendant to record the electricity consumed by the Defendant on its lands. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff remains as the Original Substation's account holder at that material times.

[Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, para 10]

[13] After the submeter was installed, the Plaintiff then calculate the usage by the Defendant and demanded a further sum of RM930,136.16 to be paid.

[14] The Defendant disputed the sum and both parties have gone through few meetings to settle the demand by the Plaintiff.

[15] In between on or around 18 July 2018, a new substation was installed on the Plaintiff's lands and the Original Substation was changed to the Defendant's account. It was then the parties' electricity charges was separately billed by TNB.

[16] Following the above, on around 30 July 2018, parties have agreed that the electricity consumption by the Defendant from September 2013 until July 2018 shall be recalculated by comparing the Defendant's sub-meter reading and the Defendant's actual TNB bill received from August 2018 until October 2018.

[Agreed Facts - Exhibit E, para 14]

[17] Based on this agreement, the Plaintiff then re-calculated the electricity charges consumed by the Defendant by using the reading of the Defendant's submeter from August 2018 to January 2019 to calculate the electricity charges consumed by the Defendant from September 2013 until July 2018.

[18] Then around 9 April 2019, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that the revised electricity charges ought to be paid by the Defendant from September 2013 until July 2018 (after taking into account the payment of RM984,892.18 made earlier) is in the sum of RM3,280,224.58.

[Agreed Facts - Ref: Exhibit E, para 15]

[19] The Defendant through email dated 14 October 2019 - see p 48 Bundle C ("Defendant Email 14 October 2019"), admitted that there was variance in the reading of the Defendant's sub-meter compared with the actual TNB bill.

[Agree