JUDGMENT

Jamhirah Ali J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant, Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (SCJ) delivered on 13 September 2024. The SCJ dismissed TNB's claim against the respondent, Quah Lian Wua, for the sum of RM421,352.05, which was said to arise from alleged loss of revenue due to unauthorised tampering and electricity theft at the respondent's premises over a period of 59 months.

[2] The learned SCJ, after hearing eight (8) witnesses for the appellant and one (1) for the respondent, and upon evaluating the totality of the evidence, held that the appellant had failed to prove the alleged tampering or the claimed loss on a balance of probabilities. The Sessions Court further found that the electricity meter was intact and functioning properly, and that the tapping point was within the appellant's own infrastructure and management, not under the control of the respondent.

[3] Dissatisfied with the dismissal, the appellant lodged the present appeal.

Background Facts

[4] TNB's claim was for the sum of RM421,352.05, allegedly representing lost revenue due to tampering with the electricity meter installation at the respondent's premises located at No. 126-1, Jalan Lestari Perdana 7/4, Taman Lestari Perdana, Bandar Putra Permai, 43300 Seri Kembangan, Selangor. The Respondent was the registered consumer for electricity supply account number 6132 220145987708 for the said premises.

[5] TNB's case was that, during an inspection carried out on 5 November 2020, its officers discovered a direct electrical connection from TNB's incoming supply to the distribution board within the premisess, bypassing the electricity meter. TNB argued that this caused the meter to fail to record the actual electricity consumption. Relying on this finding, TNB issued a statutory notice dated 15 June 2021 pursuant to s 38(4) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (ESA), followed by the initiation of legal proceedings to recover its alleged losses for a period of 59 months, from 13 November 2015 to 5 November 2020.

[6] TNB's claim was based on ss 37 and 38 of the ESA. To support their case, TNB called eight witnesses, including inspection officers (SP1 and SP2), technical staff (SP7 and SP8), and other personnel involved in meter reading and installation. They also produced various documents, including inspection forms, photographs, police reports, and loss computation reports.

[7] The Respondent, in her defence, denied any involvement in or knowledge of the alleged tampering. She explained that after receiving vacant possession in December 2014, the premisess remained vacant and unused until it was first rented out under a tenancy agreement dated 3 October 2018. The Respondent testified that the premisess were difficult to rent due to their location in an underdeveloped area. In support of her defence, she produced tenancy agreements, utility bills showing little to no consumption, water disconnection and reconnection records, and a notice from TNB confirming the disconnection of the electricity supply in July 2017.

[8] The Sessions Court , after examining the evidence in a full trial, concluded that TNB failed to substantiate its allegations of meter tampering. The Court further found that the alleged tapping took place outside the premisess, in an area under TNB's care and control. Additionally, the Court held that TNB's claim for the entire five-year period was unjustified, as the respondent had proven that the premisess were vacant for a significant part of the claim period. Consequently, the Sessions Court dismissed the claim.

The Law On Appellate Intervention

[9] The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is governed by well-established principles. An appellate Court should be slow to disturb findings of fact made by a trial judge who had the benefit of observing witnesses' demeanour. Interventions are only justified if the decision is "plainly wrong" or demonstrates an "insuffici