The burden of proof in civil claims is based on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, regarding revenue loss due to tampering with electricity meters.

[1] We had earlier allowed the appeal of the appellant (defendant) and set aside the order of the High Court at Shah Alam dated 20 April 2012 which had awarded to the respondent (plaintiff) a sum of RM962,584.73 representing the respondent's loss of revenue caused by the appellant's tampering of the respondent's meter installation at its premises. We now give our reasons for our decision. For convenience we will refer to the appellant as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff or TNB in this judgment.

Brief Facts

[2] The defendant operates a plastic factory and is a customer of plaintiff. Plaintiff supplies electricity to the defendant at the defendant's premises pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract for supply of electricity dated 22 September 1998 bearing account number 0143 00431255 10.

[3] The plaintiff's case against the defendant at the High Court was premised on the act of tampering by the defendant of its meter recording devices installed at the defendant's factory as part of its supply of electricity to the premises. The whole purpose of the tampering was to obstruct the said meter recording devices from recording the accurate flow of electricity, which in turn had resulted in under-registration and under-billing of actual electricity supplied to the defendant to the tune of RM962,584.73 for the period commencing 28 February 2008 to 24 August 2010.

[4] The facts presented by the plaintiff during the trial through its three witnesses, SP1, SP2 and SP3 and accepted by the learned trial judge showed that plaintiff conducted an inspection at the defendant's factory on 24 August 2010 at about 2.00am by a team led by Encik Mohamad Farid bin Abd Kader (SP1). The inspection was conducted in the Meter Reading Room and in the presence of an employee of the defendant's, one Encik Danaran, during which a "clamp" was discovered attached to the bottom of the Test Terminal Block (TTB).

[5] According to SP1, the clamp, which was a rectangular device (exh P5), was not part of the plaintiff's original meter installation and should not have been there. It was also discovered that the "clamp" could be easily inserted and removed from the TTB without breaking the meter installation seal.

[6] The purpose of the "clamp" was to interfere with the electricity meter by deviating electricity current away from the meter recording device that had been installed there and to obstruct the said meter from recording the accurate flow of electricity. These actions violated ss 37(1), 37(3) and 37(14) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 .

[7] The clamp was duly removed and a verification meter, known as 'PWS2.3', was used to monitor and record electricity flow through the main meter. The results showed a huge percentage of discrepancy in the recording of electricity flow at the main meter before and after the removal of the clamp. The first reading using the PWS2.3 showed a difference of -88% and a second reading showed -97.24%. The permanent check meter, which was part of the plaintiff's meter installation at the defendant's premises and served as a back-up for the main meter, was also used to monitor the electricity flow and the result showed a similar discrepancy of -92.61% on the first reading and -98.89% on the second reading.

[8] All the readings were duly recorded in the "Borang Pemeriksaan LPC (Large Power Consumer) (P1) prepared by SP1. Photographs of the clamp and the meter installation and the tests done during the investigation were taken by SP2 (En Wan Muhammad Shahril bin Pakwan Soo) which wer