In claims for undercharged utilities, the cause of action accrues at the time of the debt's discovery, and failure to call document makers results in inadmissible evidence, shifting the burden to the plaintiff.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (the defendant in the court below) against the decision of the learned High court Judge sitting in Seremban who had allowed the respondent's (the plaintiff in the court below) claim with costs

[2] The parties in this appeal will be referred to in their original capacity in the High court

Background

[3] The claim of the plaintiff, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, against the defendant, Sampo Materials (M) Sdn Bhd, was for the undercharged bill of electricity consumption which it alleged failed to be recorded accurately and/or correctly for the period between 20 December 2000 until 15 December 2002 amounting to the sum of RM340,002.72

[4] Vide an Electricity Power Supply Agreement dated 20 June 1997 ("the said agreement"), the plaintiff supplied electricity to the defendant and the latter agreed to pay for the supply of electricity by the plaintiff

[5] The total claim for the undercharged bill was due to the defect in the meter system and the reading of electricity that was supplied to the defendant

[6] The defect was discovered when the plaintiff on 17 November 2002, at the request of the defendant for a deduction in its tariff payments, conducted an inspection at the defendant's premises The plaintiff discovered that the meter system was not functioning properly and therefore was unable to provide an accurate reading of the electricity supplied to the defendant

[7] After repair work on the meter system was carried out, the reading of the defendant's electricity system returned to normal and the plaintiff recalculated the supply of electricity to the defendant for the period that the consumption of electricity failed to be recorded accurately and informed the defendant accordingly

[8] The initial calculation was from 11 December 1997 to 15 December 2002 which amounted to a sum of RM716,827.20. However, this was subsequently reduced to RM340,002.72 when the recalculation commenced from 20 December 2000 (instead of 11 December 1997) to 15 December 2002

[9] The defendant was informed of this adjusted sum and attempts were made by both parties to resolve the matter but without success

[10] The plaintiff then issued a notice of demand to the defendant on 23 November 2000 seeking recovery of the said sum of RM340,002.72 as undercharged bill for the period of 20 December 2000 to 18 December 2002

[11] On 6 April 2007, the plaintiff filed the writ of summons against the defendant

The High court

[12] At the trial, the plaintiff produced three witnesses whilst the defendant took the position that there was no case to answer on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove its case and did not call any witnesses

[13] The learned judge in any event found in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the plaintiff's claim with costs

The Appeal

[14] Before us, the learned counsel raised three issues, viz:-

(i) whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation (first issue);

(ii) whether the plaintiff had proven its claim (second issue); and

(iii) whether interest at the rate of 8% per annum was correctly awarded (third issue)

First Issue

[15] It is not disputed that the defendant had pleaded the defence of limitation in their statement of defence (para 8, statement of defence). It was the defendant's contention that the plaintiff's claim was filed out of time as it was filed six years and four months after the plaintiff's cause of action purportedly accrued on 20 December 2000, it not being disputed that the writ of summons was filed only on 6 April 2007

[16] As stated earlier the plaintiff's