Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1348
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CHEN JIN QUAN – Appellant
Versus
TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-11BNCvC-15-03/2024]
The burden of proof in establishing identity misuse rests on the party asserting the claim, and shifting this burden constitutes a significant error in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 67 - The court addressed the improper burden of proof placement and found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant's identity was fraudulently used in the electricity supply application. (Paras 11, 14, 18, 26)
(B) Burden of proof principles - The party who asserts the affirmative of an issue bears the burden to prove it, which is not to be placed upon the denying party during proceedings. (Paras 11, 13)
(C) Judicial evaluation errors - The Magistrate's failure to evaluate evidence comprehensively, particularly the pivotal admissions in testimony, led to flawed reasoning in the ruling. (Paras 20, 29, 32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed the defendant was liable for unrecorded electricity usage due to tampering at properties associated with the defendant’s name. The defendant consistently denied involvement, asserting that his identity had been misused to open an account without his knowledge. (Paras 4-9)
Findings of Court:
The learned Magistrate's ruling was flawed due to improper evaluation of evidence and the misplacement of the burden of proof, leading to the allowance of the appeal. (Paras 33)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the defendant's identity was misused and whether the Magistrate's court properly assessed the evidence regarding burden of proof. (Paras 2, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court adjudged that the burden of proof remained with the party asserting the affirmative claim, reaffirming that misdirection in placing this burden on the defendant fundamentally affected the trial's integrity. (Paras 11, 14, 19)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the Magistrate's decision was set aside with costs awarded. (Paras 34)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeal context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background facts of the case and allegations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. burden of proof principles in judicial proceedings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. responsibility for proving signature authenticity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. evaluation of witness testimony and identity verification. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. evidential burden in cases of forgery. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. need for witness testimony to prove document execution. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. evidential value of contemporaneous actions. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 9. pleadings and evidential consistency requirements. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. conclusion and outcome of the appeal. (Para 33) |
Introduction
[1] In this judgment, the parties were referred to as they were designated before the trial court. This is an appeal by the defendant. The appeal arose from the decision of the Magistrate's court which found in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Magistrate allowed the plaintiff's claim with costs.
[2] The focus of this appeal concerned the question of whether the defendant's identity had been unlawfully misused to open an account with the plaintiff for the supply of electricity. It further raised the question of whether the Magistrate's court had correctly evaluated and appreciated the evidence presented during the trial.
[3] Upon examining the record of appeal and considering the submissions from both learned counsel, I allowed the appeal. The plaintiff was not satisfied and appealed against the decision.
Brief Background Facts
[4] The plaintiff was a licensed electricity supply provider. On 19 November 2018, an account for electricity supply bearing the number 6143-210110304702 ("Impugned TNB Account") was registered under the defendant's name. This account was associated with the premises located at No. 15-1, Lorong Batu Nilam 3A, Bandar Bukit Tinggi, 41200 Klang, Selangor ("Premises").
[5] Sometime in March 2020, the plaintiffs employees carried out an inspection of the electricity meter installed at the Premises. During the inspection, they discovered evidence of tampering. The meter's seal, rivet cover and security sticker had been interfered with, indicating unauthorized access. Additionally, a circuit modification was identified which purportedly compromised the meter's ability to accurately record electricity consumption.
[6] The plaintiff asserted that as a result of the tampering, the electricity meter failed to record 3.82% of the actual electricity consumption at the Premises. Consequently, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was liable for the unrecorded electricity usage. The plaintiff subsequently claimed a sum of RM26,045.10 from the defendant, representing the cost of electricity purportedly consumed but not recorded during the period between 23 January 2019 until 12 March 2020.
[7] Upon receiving the plaintiffs letter of demand, the defendant took immediate action by lodging a police report. In the police report, the defendant categorically denied any knowledge or involvement with the Impugned TNB Account. The defendant asserted that he had never rented the Premises in question and had never submitted an application for electricity supply at that location.
[8] During trial, it was revealed that the defendant had previously lodged another police report much earlier. This report was made more than a year even before the defendant received the plaintiffs letter of demand. The earlier police report was prompted by correspondence from one Yap Hon Fah who had addressed matters related to the termination of tenancy for a premise adjacent to the one in question.
[9] The defendant submitted a written complaint to the plaintiff in early December 2022, alleging the misuse of his identity. Following this, between December 2022 and March 2023, the defendant lodged three additional police reports. These reports detailed his discovery that his identity had been unlawfully used to ope
