1. ) Ragunath A/L Mohun v Perbadanan Tabung Pembangunan Kemahiran (Ptpk) (BA-11ANCC-1-02/2025)

RAGUNATH A/L MOHUN

PARVATI A/P PERUMAL (NO. K/P: 700808-10-5524) …PERAYU-PERAYU DAN PERBADANAN TABUNG PEMBANGUNAN KEMAHIRAN …RESPONDEN [DALAM MAHKAMAH MAJISTRET DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: BA-A72NCC-342-05/2024 ANTARA PERBADANAN TABUNG PEMBANGUNAN KEMAHIRAN …PLAINTIF

RAGUNATH A/L MOHUN

PARVATI A/P PERUMAL (NO. K/P: 700808-10-5524) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN

The underlying suit was filed on 30-5-2024 to recover with interest, a sum of RM10,750.00 skills training loan granted on 1-7-2016 by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the 1st Appellant/1st Defendant as borrower, repayment of which was guaranteed by the 2nd Appellant/2nd Defendant.

On 21-5-2025, this Court affirmed the Magistrate’s decision on 24-1-2025 to enter summary judgment against the Defendants for the sum of RM12,058.08 outstanding as at 24-5-2024 together with judgment interest at 5% on RM12,058.08 until full payment. These are the Court’s brief grounds. Analysis and findings

It was undisputed that a Skills Training Loan Agreement dated 1-7-2016 was entered into between the Plaintiff as lender, the 1st Defendant as borrower and the 2nd Defendant as guarantor (“Loan Agreement”).

The Loan Agreement was entered into pursuant to the Defendant’s acceptance of the Plaintiff’s offer letter (“Offer Letter”). Clause 26 of the Loan Agreement expressly incorporated the terms of the Offer Letter.

The Defendants raised the following as triable issues, in the order that this Court will deal with them in this Judgment: a) Whether the loan was disbursed; b) Whether the action is time-barred; and c) Whether the calculation of interest is correct.

The 1st Defendant contended that he never participated in the training and questioned whether the loan sum was disbursed.

As documented, the contemplated training was to have run from 16-5-2016 until 15-5-2017. It was clear from the terms of the Loan Agreement that even if the 1st Defendant did not attend the training, liability to repay the disbursed loan would remain. There is no evidence that the 1st Defendant notified the Plaintiff at any time that he was not attending the training.

Regardless of whether the 1st Defendant ultimately participated in the training, the Plaintiff had undertaken to disburse the loan sum to the identified training institution (for the “Yuran Latihan”) and to the Plaintiff himself (for the “Elaun Sara Diri”).

There are statements of accounts and numerous notices to remind the 1st Defendant to regularise his outstanding repayments (“Notices”). It is improbable that the Plaintiff would have embarked on a debt collection exercise if it had not in fact disbursed the loan.

It is also improbable that the 1st Defendant was unaware that the loan sum was disbursed. He would have received the “Elaun Sara Diri” in his own account and did not expressly deny this fact in his affidavit and in fact, the 1s Defendant did not affirm an affidavit at all. The 1st Defendant’s conduct was therefore telling, i.e.:- a) He did not respond to object to the Notices; and b) In response to the action, his solicitors made an offer to settle the debt claimed by letter dated 31-7-2024. As the settlement letter was in evidence and not expunged, any settlement privilege was presumably waived.

Accordingly, this Court found the suggestion that the Plaintiff did not disburse the loan sum to be inherently improbable and inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence and rejected it as a triable issue.

The Defendants primary contention was that the claim is time-barred because the Plaintiff’s cause of action in contract accrued six (6) months after the 1st Defendant completed the training or after the Plaintiff disbursed the loan, whichever is later.

According to the Defendants, the cut-off dates fell on 16-11- 2017 or 12-10-2017, as the case may be, relying on the following clause in the Loan Agreement: Clause 1(c):

However, the 1st Defendant had conveniently overlooked Clause 2 of the Loan Agreement. He was obliged to pay RM103.80 per month for 120 months or RM12,456.00, and Clause 4.2 of the Offer Letter clearly states that:

4.2 Pinjaman ini hendaklah diselesaikan di dalam tempoh 120 bulan bermula enam

bulan selepas menamatkan latihan atau enam (6) bulan selepas bayaran dikeluarkan mengikut mana yang terkemudian. PTPK berhak mengambil tindakan undang-undang ke atas jumlah ansuran bulanan yang tertunggak.

As noted, there is no notification to the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant would not be attending the training and, as such, the Plaintiff would have reasonably assumed that the training concluded on 15-5-2017. Six (6) months afterwards is 16-11- 2017, and 120 months thereafter is 16-11-2027.

For whatever reason, the Notices from the Plaintiff consistently pegged the start date for the 120-month instalment payments at a later date, on 1-9-2018. In any case, Clause 4 of the Loan Agreement stipulates that the Plaintiff may give notice to recall the loan and accelerate the repayment in the event of any default in the scheduled repayments.

Regardless of the designated commencement date for the 120 monthly repayments to start, whether it is 16-11-2017 or 1-9- 2018, it was entirely the Plaintiff’s prerogative whether to exercise the right to recall the loan and accelerate repayments under Clause 4.

The Plaintiff gave the 1st Defendant ample opportunity to regularise his repayments, and there was a fresh breach every month that the monthly repayments were due. From a time-bar perspective, this was a case of a running account on a subsisting contract.

This Court therefore takes the view that the Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract for non-payment of the accelerated repayment of the entire outstanding loan accrued did not accrue until 14-4-2023 when the 1st Defendant ignored the Plaintiff’s notice that the loan would be recalled without further notice if the account was not regularised.

Thus, the action was filed well within the period of limitation on 30-5-2024. Interest calculations

The loan is subject to a 3% annual administrative fee applied on the reducing principal balance as payments are made. A table of calculations outlining the amount of principal and interest accrued over the 120 instalments. The 1st Defendant did not demonstrate how the calculations are erroneous.

This was a clear case to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and there was no error by the Magistrate. There being no bona fide triable issues raised, this Court agreed with the Magistrate and dismissed the Defendants’ appeal with cost of RM1,000.00 subject to allocator. Bertarikh : 13 Oktober 2025 SGD ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM Peguam bagi pihak Perayu-perayu/Defendan-defendan: Mohan Ramaasaamy (Messrs Ram Mo Associates) Peguam bagi pihak Responden/Plaintif: Vischaal Rubeam Yogaratnam (with Nievanee Ravindran) (Messrs Vas & Co.)