PUTRAJAYA, March 25 — The Sessions Court in Klang has ordered a shoplot owner to pay Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) RM26,146.70 for undercharged electricity.
Judge Noorhisham Mohd Jaafar allowed TNB’s claim after finding that the utility company had established its case on the balance of probabilities against Choo Lee Chen.
In his grounds of judgment dated March 3, he held that electricity was supplied to the premises under the accused's registered account but was not fully paid for due to the meter under-recording consumption, resulting in a financial benefit to her at TNB’s expense.
TNB had filed the action in 2024 under Section 38(3) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990, seeking to recover RM61,310.05 for undercharged electricity following suspicions of irregular usage linked to alleged bitcoin mining at the premises.
However, Judge Noorhisham awarded TNB RM26,146.70 as the recoverable amount after clarifications were made during the proceedings regarding computational discrepancies and the submission of a corrected calculation.
The dispute arose from an inspection conducted on July 8, 2020, at a premises in Kota Bayu Emas, Pendamar, Port Klang.
TNB representatives found that the electricity meter had been tampered with, with direct bypass wiring installed from the incoming isolator to the distribution box, circumventing the meter.
The representatives subsequently removed the bypass wiring, resealed the meter and lodged a police report. Choo denied being the electricity user at the premises, asserting that the property had been rented out.
In the grounds of judgment published on the judiciary’s website, Judge Noorhisham noted that the tenant had vacated the premises in April 2019, over a year before TNB’s inspection.
He further observed that no representatives of the alleged tenant were called to testify, nor was any documentary evidence presented to substantiate the tenancy arrangement beyond the tenancy agreement itself.
“Despite the discovery of meter tampering at the premises, the defendant took no discernible step against the tenant. No police report was lodged, no civil proceedings were initiated, and no notice of breach or other contemporaneous documentary action was produced.
“To my mind, such inaction sits uneasily with the stance now adopted in these proceedings, particularly given that vacant possession had already been returned to her more than a year before the inspection,” Judge Noorhisham said.
