The appellate court does not interfere with the trial court's discretion on procedural issues unless an error is demonstrated; contested facts must be resolved in a full trial, not under interlocutory orders.

(Appeal Against The Sessions Court's Decision)

Preliminary

[1] The 2nd Defendant (appellant) is appealing against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge who dismissed with costs the 2nd defendant's application to dispose of the case filed in the Sessions Court on a point of law under O 14A r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC 2012").

[2] This appeal relates to the claim that the plaintiff's (respondent) meter had been tampered with, resulting in revenue loss.

[3] The plaintiff's claim is primarily governed by the Electricity Supply Act 1990 as well as other factual and legal issues that will be addressed during the trial.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[4] In this case, the plaintiff is the supplier of electricity.

[5] The 1st defendant is the plaintiff's registered customer for electricity supply to the premises in question.

[6] On 14 December 2021, the plaintiff allegedly found that the meter used to record the consumption of electricity at the premises where the 1st defendant has been registered as a customer had been tampered with.

[7] A loss of revenue of RM638,033.30 is alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff as a result.

[8] It was alleged that the meter had been tampered with between 16 March 2020 and 14 December 2021, resulting in the loss of revenue.

[9] On 12 June 2023, the plaintiff was informed by the 1st defendant's former solicitors that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia and had been receiving psychiatric treatment since 2003. This is based on a medical report from Hospital Kuala Lumpur dated 28 Mac 2023.

[10] This led the plaintiff to examine the documentation submitted when the electricity account was opened. The plaintiff discovered that the account was actually opened by a representative, the 2nd defendant herself.

[11] Documentation submitted for this purpose included a Tenancy Agreement for the premises that appeared to have been rented out to a company, as well as an authorisation letter signed by the 1st defendant and a copy of his identity card.

[12] In light of this, the plaintiff argued that the 1st defendant was not capable of understanding the terms of a binding contract or of signing a letter of authorisation due to his mental condition. In this regard, a litigation representative for the 1st defendant also alleged that the 1st defendant's particulars had been misused to open the electricity account.

[13] As a result of a further investigation with the Inland Revenue Board Malaysia, the plaintiff alleged that the duty stamp affixed to the Tenancy Agreement was not related to the Tenancy Agreement but was instead related to a sale and purchase agreement involving different parties.

[14] Therefore, the plaintiff added the 2nd defendant to this action in order to resolve the dispute surrounding the account opening as well as determine who should be liable for the plaintiff's claim.

Court's Analysis And Findings

[15] In this instance, the 2nd defendant had raised two questions of law for the learned Sessions Court Judge to decide:

(a) Whether the 2nd defendant is a "consumer" under s 38(3) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 read together with s 2 of the same Act for the plaintiff to claim the revenue loss incurred due to the meter tampering incident at the premise concerned; and

(b) If the answer is no, whether the plaintiff's claim under s 38(3) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 against the 2nd