Registered consumers are liable for utility charges even if meter tampering occurs without direct involvement; liability is based on contractual obligations under the Electricity Supply Act.

[1] The appellant's appeal is against the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court affirming the decision of the Sessions Court which favoured the respondent ("TNB") in its claim against the appellant for loss of revenue as a result of meter tampering discovered at the premises known as No 34, Changkat Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur ("the premises"). Having heard arguments, we reserved judgment to a date to be fixed. This then is our unanimous decision.

[2] The following facts have been established beyond dispute:

(1) TNB is a licensee under the Electricity Supply Act, 1990 ("the ESA ").

(2) At all material times, the appellant was the owner of the premises. (3) The appellant was TNB's registered consumer for the premises with account No 012364675401.

[3] On 16 January 2008, TNB carried out an inspection on its meter at the premises and discovered that the meter had been tampered with, subsequent to which TNB lodged a police report. Meter tampering, dishonest consumption of electricity and damaging any meter are offences under s 37(1), (3) and (14) respectively of the ESA .

[4] TNB's calculation of its loss of revenue as a result of the tampering was RM77,318.67, which covered the period between 22 September 2004 and 21 December 2007.

[5] TNB then issued two notices of demand to the appellant to recover the loss of revenue. The appellant refused to pay, hence the present proceedings commenced by TNB in the Sessions Court.

[6] At the trial, the focal point of the appellant's defence was that the premises had already been rented out to a third party, namely 'The Moghul House Sdn Bhd' ("Moghul House") at the time he purchased the property from one 'Straits Merchant Sdn Bhd'. He never occupied the premises and had nothing to do with the tampering of the meter What the appellant was suggesting in effect was that he could not be made liable for something that he was not responsible for.

[7] In his grounds of judgment, the learned High Court Judge noted that the appellant had obtained judgment against Moghul House for breach of the tenancy agreement and its failure to pay for the electricity and other utility charges. The judgment sum however remained wholly unsatisfied.

[8] It was the appellant's contention that although he was the registered owner of the premises, he was not the consumer of the electricity and that therefore he was not responsible for any electricity charges incurred by his tenant during the tenancy period, let alone the RM77,318.67 claimed by TNB.

[9] In this respect, the facts are strikingly similar to the facts in Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd , [2014] 8 MLJ 280 , where Lee Heng Cheong J decided as follows:

"I find that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in its claim for the loss of revenue under s 38(3) to (5) of the Act as the defendant was at all material times, the registered consumer of the plaintiff. The plaintiff 's E-CIBS System [exh 1] showed that the defendant is the registered consumer and exh P24, the Power Supply Agreement dated 4 September 1998 showed that the defendant is the consumer of the electricity supplied to the defendant's premises.Further the monthly electricity bills for the electricity sup