GOH LI KIANG v TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD

Case Significance

Illustrates that an electricity supplier must prove meter tampering before recovering loss of revenue, and that a letter of undertaking signed under a default judgment loses its effect once that judgment is set aside.

This High Court decision, delivered in Bahasa Malaysia and sitting in its appellate jurisdiction, concerns a consumer's appeal against the dismissal of his counterclaim in an electricity-supply dispute, and the effect of a letter of undertaking signed under the shadow of a default judgment. The electricity supplier, Tenaga Nasional Berhad, had originally sued the consumer in the Sessions Court for loss of revenue said to arise from meter tampering, but withdrew that claim, so that only the consumer's counterclaim proceeded to trial; the Sessions Court dismissed the counterclaim, and the consumer appealed. Reviewing the record, the High Court held that the Sessions Court Judge had erred in her assessment of the evidence. It found that the letter of undertaking the consumer had signed — under which he agreed to pay by instalments — had been given only after a default judgment was entered, and that once that default judgment was set aside the letter of undertaking ceased to have any effect; the supplier could not rely on it and was required to prove that there had in fact been tampering with the meter before it could claim loss of revenue. On the evidence, tampering was not proved, and the disconnection carried out after the meter was functioning properly was wrongful. The court allowed the appeal and the counterclaim, declaring the letter of undertaking invalid and of no effect, ordering the return of the sum of RM81,249.60 the consumer had paid, awarding exemplary damages of RM10,000.00 in light of the supplier's clear error in burdening the consumer, and ordering costs of RM6,000.00. The judgment illustrates that a supplier must prove meter tampering before recovering loss of revenue, and that an undertaking extracted under a since-set-aside default judgment cannot be enforced. The court's approach shows that an admission of liability procured on the strength of a judgment later vacated falls away with it, and that the statutory machinery for recovering loss of revenue cannot be short-circuited by relying on such an admission instead of proving the underlying wrong.