Tenaga Nasional Berhad v LIM Yong Zhuang (MC-A72-2-02/2025)

This is the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of revenue for a period of five years, from 5 February 2019 to 22 January 2024, in the sum of RM55,290.85, through a civil action under section 38(3) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (“ESA 1990”) against the Defendant, based on the allegation that there was tampering with the meter installation at the Defendant’s premise, namely at SU 3945A, Jalan Sekolah, Pekan Masjid Tanah, 78300 Masjid Tanah, Melaka ( “the premise”). The meter tampering can be categorised as an offence under sections 37(1), (3) and/or (14) of the ESA 1990, committed in relation to the said meter installation at the premise.

This case was disposed of after a full trial where the Plaintiff called four witnesses as follows, whereas the Defendant submitted that he did not call any witnesses to support its case:- Plaintiff’s case a) PW1: Mohd Anuar bin Idrus, Team Leader; b) PW2: Mohd Noor Fais bin Ishak, TNB Technician; c) PW3: Anitah binti Haris, Administrative Assistant with the Revenue Assurance Division of Melaka; and d) PW4: Muhammad Aqil Darwisy bin Mohd Radzi, Specialist with the Revenue Assurance Division of Melaka; Defendant’s case e) No witness. S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg

After the full trial, this court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim with costs of RM5,000.00.

The Plaintiff’s case against the Defendant is, inter alia, as follows: a) The Plaintiff, at all material times, is a limited liability company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965, supplying electricity throughout the country and is a licensee under the ESA 1990; b) The Defendant became a registered consumer of the Plaintiff through account no. 220624243203 (new) / 03170060539302 (old) for the premise. During an inspection conducted on 22.1.2024 at about 1.13 p.m. by the Plaintiff, it was discovered that the meter had been tampered with. The Plaintiff subsequently lodged a police report against the Defendant vide Report No. MASJID TANAH/000230/24 dated 22.1.2024 (page 28, Bundle B); c) The Plaintiff averred that the meter at the Defendant’s premises had been tampered with; d) The loss of revenue suffered by the Plaintiff arising from the tampering was estimated at RM55,290.85 (rounded from RM55,290.87) for the unrecorded consumption of electricity for the period between 5 February 2019 and 22 January 2024. The Plaintiff calculated this amount using the meter accuracy S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg method (kaedah pengiraan ralat), and the details are as follows. No.

Jumlah Kerugian Hasil

Jumlah Kumpulan Wang Tenaga Boleh Baharu (KWTBB)

Jumlah Pelepasan Imbangan Kos Penjanaan (ICPT)

Jumlah Kos Operasi (Perbelanjaan)

Jumlah Belanja Pelbagai / Kos Meter (Perbelanjaan)

Service Tax sebanyak 6% RM3,022.08 TOTAL: RM55,290.85 (dibundarkan dari RM55,290.87) e) The Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the loss of revenue suffered by the Plaintiff; and f) The losses and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff amount to unjust enrichment on the part of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is therefore entitled to restitution as a fair and reasonable remedy.

The Defendant’s case is, inter alia, as follows: a) That the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the allegation that the meter tampering caused the meter to be unable to record the actual consumption accurately, and that upon inspection, a S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg percentage error of 61.699% was found, meaning that the meter was only able to record 38.301% of the actual consumption. The Defendant contended and denied that there was any such error in calculation amounting to 61.699% and further denied being liable for any loss of revenue to the Plaintiff; b) That the Plaintiff conducted an inspection of the Defendant’s electricity meter at the premise on 22.01.2024. If indeed the meter had been tampered with to the extent of causing an error of 61.699%, whereby the old meter could only record 38.301% of the actual usage, this would mean that once the new meter was installed, the unit consumption in kWh would have increased by approximately 61.699%. However, a comparison of the electricity bills issued by the Plaintiff before and after the inspection date did not show any significant increase. The electricity bills prior to the inspection were exhibited at pages 5 to 16 of the Common Bundle of Documents (Bundle B); c) That the Plaintiff had failed to adduce any credible evidence to prove the alleged percentage error, and the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s calculation was erroneous. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to prove its alleged total loss of revenue. S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg

The primary issues that arise before this court are as follows: i. First Issue: Whether the Plaintiff’s meter was tampered with at the premise belonged to the Defendant; and ii. Second Issue: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the total loss of revenue of RM55,290.85 against the Defendant.

(I) Trite Law 7. The Defendant is registered customer of the supply of electricity in the premise as aforesaid, having applied and obtained for electricity supply from TNB. In essence, the Defendant is a registered customer of TNB, being the only electric power dealer in Peninsular Malaysia. It is undisputed fact that the Defendant’s account number is 220624243203 (new) / 03170060539302 (old), as reflected in the Defendant’s monthly electricity bills with his name (pages 57–66, Bundle B).

As the account holder and registered customer, the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, at all material times, to regularly check the meter and to detect any possible tampering (Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Empayar Canggih Sdn Bhd [2014] 8 MLJ 280, High Court). It is advisable, in approaching meter tampering dispute where a tenancy agreement is involved, the S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg landlords should require tenants to apply for their own accounts with TNB so that the tenant, as the registered consumer would bear liability for any loss of revenue suffered by TNB arising from meter tampering. However, in the present case, the Defendant has not raised any issue concerning a third-party tenant, but has confined his arguments to disputing the alleged percentage error and the method of revenue loss calculation made by PW3.

The law is fair. A registered consumer cannot rely on a sham defence for the simple reason that it would result in unjust enrichment. A registered consumer can only be absolved of liability if it can be shown that no electricity was consumed at the premise during the period when the meter was tampered with (Thomas Thomas v TNB [2017] 4 CLJ 340, CoA). As has been settled, a conviction under sectionS 37(1), (3) or (14) of the ESA is not a prerequisite for TNB to file civil action to recover loss of revenue pursuant to sections 38(3) until (5). If TNB were required to await prosecution and conviction which could take years, the customer would be unduly enriched by the unlawful act, defeating the very purpose for which Parliament enacted the legislation (Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Ternakan Air Wui Kyee Sdn Bhd [2015] MLJU 2136; [2015] 5 CLJ 955, CoA).

Another pertinent point is that for the purposes of a claim under sections 38(3) until (5) of ESA, it is not necessary for TNB to prove S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg the identity of the person who damaged or tampered with the meter (Thomas Thomas [supra]). In the context, it must be remembered that the well-known Mayaria principle applies in TNB’s claims, whereby once TNB discovers meter tampering and the impugned meter is rectified and/or replaced, the offence under section 37 of the ESA is deemed to no longer subsist. In such circumstances, TNB cannot invoke section 38(1) of the ESA to disconnect electricity supply to the consumer’s premise. Any disconnection at the time the meter tampering which has been fixed, would be unlawful (Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Mayaria Sdn Bhd & Anor, Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-28-03/2017(W), FC; endorsed in the case of Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] 2 MLJ 25, FC). For the present case, however, wrongful disconnection of electricity is not in issue.

First Issue: Whether the Plaintiff’s meter was tampered with at the premise belonged to the Defendant?

PW1, as the team leader, together with PW2, conducted an inspection on 22 January 2024 at the Defendant’s premise. During the inspection, they discovered that the electricity meter installed at the premises was unable to record the actual electricity consumption, resulting in an undercharge and meter tampering. PW1 duly recorded the findings of the inspection and the full load three-phase meter installation test in the Inspection and Testing S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg Form at pages 23–24, Bundle B. The corrective measures taken were also documented in the said form.

Based on PW1’s and PW2’s testimonies, a physical examination of the meter installation was carried out visually. They found that the red phase current wire had been tampered with inside the meter, causing it to fail to record the correct reading. Furthermore, the meter cover rivet had been tampered with, the security seal was disturbed and the sealing was missing (see page 23, Bundle B). These findings were recorded under items 2.1 and 2.2 of the said Inspection and Testing Form dated 22 January 2024. Evidences given by PW1 and PW2 clearly established that tampering had occurred, which resulted in the Plaintiff’s meter failing to record the actual electricity usage.

The Defendant, however, did not dispute the fact of tampering with the physical meter installation. Instead, the Defendant’s challenge was solely directed towards the method of loss calculation carried out by PW3. Nevertheless, it is only fair that this Court first verifies whether tampering did in fact occur, before considering the issue of the calculation of revenue loss in such claim.

This Court has considered PW1’s conclusion that meter tampering had occurred at the Defendant’s premises. His conclusion was based on a current comparison test, as recorded under item 3.1(A) S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg at pages 23–24, Bundle B which showed the actual current reading, and item 3.1(B) which showed the display current reading. The total actual current was 2.11 amps, whereas the total display current was 0 amps (see the Inspection Form at page 23, Bundle B), and photographs taken at pages 34–36, Bundle B. This demonstrated that the electricity bills issued to the Defendant were based on display current readings, which were significantly lower than the actual current readings, resulting in undercharging in the bills.

The corrective action taken by PW1 and PW2 was to replace the meter with a new three-phase meter with serial number 323410182 and reseal it (see pages 47–51, Bundle B). PW1 successfully demonstrated in his testimony that he had conducted an meter accuracy method to ensure the new meter functioned properly and in accordance with technical requirements (see photographs at pages 47–48 and 50–51, Bundle B). The testimonies of the Plaintiff’s witnesses were supported by photographic evidence of the inspection. Subsequently, PW1 confirmed that both the current comparison test with the meter accuracy method revealed irregularities in the Defendant’s meter installation (TNB v City Edible Ice Sdn Bhd [2016] MLJU 913, HC).

As earlier observed, the current comparison test used an ammeter to measure the percentage difference in current due to tampering, whereas the meter accuracy method used a test set to measure the S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg error percentage that failed to be recorded due to the tampering (City Edible Ice [supra]). In a simple word, the calculation was made on the alleged loss based on the identified error rate which was derived from such meter accuracy test (Cheah Yew Hock v TNB [2025] MLJU 2232, HC). As a result of the tampering, the meter at the premise could not function properly and failed to record the actual electricity consumption in line with the supply delivered. The cause of action here was straightforward, which questioned the tampering of the meter that caused the Plaintiff to suffer loss of revenue.

Throughout the inspection, PW1 documented the evidence through photographs (see pages 34–36, Part B, Bundle B). Thereafter, the faulty and impugned meter installation was replaced with a new meter, which showed normal readings upon testing, thereby confirming the irregularities of the previous meter. The Defendant never disputed nor raised any issue regarding the identity of the person who applied for or used the electricity supply. This again made the current case very straightforward.

PW2 confirmed that he and PW1 did not enter the premise during the inspection, as the meter was located outside the fence. From outside, the premise appeared occupied and in operation, In addition, they called out the Defendant’s name but no one responded. The absence of the Defendant’s representatives during S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg the inspection, to this court, did not cast any doubt on the inspection carried out by PW1 and PW2 as this was further confirmed in the forms and letters contained in Bundle B. I concur with my brother magistrate Dhilip Nair (Segamat) at the case of TNB v Ng Jun Foh [2025] MLJU 2370 on the absence of representative of the Defendant during the inspection could not raise a doubt of whether the inspection was done or not, especially the meter installation at the Defendant’s premise was outside .

In the considered view of this Court, it is well within the knowledge of every consumer, including the Defendant, that TNB is the sole licensee for the supply and distribution of electricity in Peninsular Malaysia under the ESA. TNB’s primary business is the distribution and transmission of electrical power for both domestic and industrial consumption. Therefore, as stipulated in section 38(5) of the ESA, TNB is entitled to recover loss of revenue either through a civil action or by instituting criminal proceedings against consumers who tamper with the meter. In the present case, the focus is on the tampered meter, where TNB had acted in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Energy Commission and properly completed the required documentation. The Defendant, in turn, was afforded the right to be heard which could rebut the Plaintiff’s findings that the meter installation had been physically tampered with, if any. This strikes a balance between the competing interests that the ESA seeks to uphold either by the S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg means of criminal prosecution or civil action at this point (TNB v Chew Thai Kay & Anor [2022] 2 MLJ 25, FC).

From the totality of the evidence presented, this Court found that both PW1 and PW2 to be credible witnesses and their evidence were corroborated by the Inspection Form (pages 23–24, Bundle B), the police report (page 28, Bundle B) and the written statement dated 9 February 2024 issued to the Defendant by the Plaintiff pursuant to section 38(4) of the Electricity Supply Act 1990. The tampering acts namely, the missing seal, tampered rivet, disturbed security sticker and tampered red phase wire, were never rebutted by the Defendant. Clearly, the Plaintiff had satisfied the statutory requirement of prima facie evidence under section 38(4) of the ESA. Importantly, this Court acknowledged, as held in another decided case of Mohamad Shaiful Alif bin Mohd Sharif & Anor v Amuthanraja A/L M Appoo [2024] MLJU 1792 before the same Court, that it is trite law that even if the Defendant chooses not to present any witness, the Plaintiff is not absolved from discharging its burden of proof to the satisfaction of the Court on a balance of probabilities.

As seen earlier, this Court ultimately found that tampering of the meter installation at the Defendant’s premises had been duly proven by the Plaintiff through consistent and corroborated evidence. However, the Defendant failed to demonstrate any error S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg or doubt in the Plaintiff’s evidence, other than only challenging the method of calculation of the alleged revenue loss. At this juncture, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has proven the fact of revenue loss resulting from the tampering and is entitled under section 38(4) to rely on the written statement as prima facie evidence of the amount payable in recovering the loss of revenue pursuant to section 38(3) ESA (Chew Thai Kay [supra]).

In the present case, although the Notice of Demand dated 18 December 2024 issued by the Plaintiff complied with the requirements of section 38(4) ESA and constituted prima facie evidence of the Defendant’s liability, such evidence is still rebuttable. However, on the totality of the evidence, this Court found that the Plaintiff had successfully demonstrated tampering as above-mentioned, which was further confirmed when the faulty meter was replaced with a new meter (serial number: 323410182) that functioned properly upon resealing.

The law of evidence recognises that an abundance of inculpatory circumstances can lead to one logical conclusion. Here, the tampered rivet and security seal directly indicate interference with the meter’s ability to record actual electricity consumption. The Defendant failed to challenge PW1’s and PW2’s testimonies in this regard (TNB v Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2021] 5 MLJ 937, FC). Accordingly, this Court found that the S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg Plaintiff had proven against the Defendant that the meter was tampered on a balance of probabilities. The next issue to be determined is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the total loss of revenue of RM55,290.85 from the Defendant as a result of the proven meter tampering at the premise belonged to the Defendant.

Second Issue: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the total loss of revenue of RM55,290.85 against the Defendant?

The Plaintiff subsequently moved to claim the sum of RM55,290.85 for the period from 5 February 2019 until 22 January 2024. The issue raised here is a short one, namely the Defendant’s counsel focusing on the method of calculation of the loss of revenue and contending that the Plaintiff’s witness, PW3, failed to prove that there was correct calculation method to obtain such actual amount of loss. The Defendant’s counsel argued on reliability of the calculation.

This is because PW3 had taken the sample bill dated 4 December 2023 and stated that the amount billed on 4 December 2023 was 1,131 kWh. After applying the error adjustment percentage of 61.669%, PW3 calculated that the actual consumption should have been 2,951 kWh, as alleged by the Defendant’s counsel in his written submission (refer to pages 17–22, Bundle B, for the S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg calculation of loss of revenue due to tampering of the meter installation, particularly Question 17, WS(SP3) on the December 2023 bill, and the explanation of the error percentage of –

61.669%).

PW3 also admitted that her calculation was as contained at pages 17–22, Bundle B. However, when cross-examined as to how or from where she had obtained the figure of 1,131 kWh, PW3 was unable to provide any explanation. At page 17 of the Notes of Proceedin gs, it is recorded that when PW3 was asked by the trial court whether she could answer the question posed by the Defendant’s counsel, she admitted that she could not. The Defendant’s counsel therefore argued and submitted that PW3 had failed to understand and explain the very calculation herself that had carried out, and thus the accuracy of the computation which forms the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim, is doubtful and should not be accepted by this Court.

Nevertheless, in her witness statement WS(SP3), PW3 explained that the formula used for the calculation was derived from the Energy Commission’s Guidelines at page 94, Bundle B (refer to Question 17 of the WS(SP3)), as follows: - Jumlah sebenar kWj = Jumlah kWj yang telah dibil 100%- Peratusan Ralat S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg

In the observation of this Court, PW3’s method of calculation corresponded to Item 5.2.2 in the said Energy Commission’s Guidelines, namely the “Kaedah Ralat Kejituan” (meter accuracy method). This method applies where there is no sudden drop and the meter error is obtained through a meter accuracy test. The percentage error shows that the meter did not record the actual electricity consumption. To ensure the reliability of this method, the licensee must ensure that the test equipment used is calibrated and certified by a valid and current certificate. Subsequently, PW3 had indeed deducted the permissible error margin of 3.00% in her calculation. This Court further noted that such meter accuracy test is a technical test requiring skill and equipment with precision, which is carried out using the reading in the form of test set to obtain the percentage of error that failed to be recorded as a result of the meter tampering (City Edible Ice ([supra]).

According to the Guidelines (Item 5.2), there are four methods in the following that can be used to calculate loss of revenue according to circumstances of the individual case: - a) Kaedah Purata (average method) based on the average of three consecutive months’ consumption before a sudden drop is detected; b) Kaedah Ralat Kejituan (meter accuracy method) as applied by PW3 in the current case (also see Cheah Yew Hock [supra]); S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg c) Kaedah Beban Kehendak Maksimum (MD) (maximum demand method) refers to where the supply is taken by making a direct connection without passing through the meter, or where a meter accuracy test cannot be carried out, the calculation of the lost units may be made using the Maximum Demand (MD). This is to be referred to the installed load at the time the electricity supply application was made by the consumer, or the load in use at the premises at the time of inspection and testing of the meter (see Chen Jin Quan v TNB [2025] MLJU 133, HC); and d) Kaedah Profil Beban (Load Profile) which is applicable only to consumers with meters equipped with load profile data. The calculation method is as follows, by obtaining the load profile prior to the date of detection, preparing a graph from the load profile obtained, and analysing the graph to identify periods of high load (actual electricity consumption) and low load (tampered consumption) (see TNB v Yeoh Seok Hong [2020] MLJU 837, HC).

In the considered view of this Court, the Kaedah Ralat Kejituan (meter accuracy method) is legally recognised and reliable, provided that the test set is calibrated and certified by SIRIM or an accredited DSM (The Department of Standards Malaysia) laboratory, and the test is carried out by competent personnel (refer to Item 4.3.7, Energy Commission’s Guidelines). The same S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg Guidelines further require that three readings (a test set form) be taken, averaged, and importantly, where the test set cannot be used, it has to be carried out by a manual calculation which is required to be verified by a qualified engineer or technical executive (refer to Item 5.2.2, Energy Commission’s Guidelines).

This Court is mindful that the ESA is silent on the exact methodology to be used by TNB to calculate its loss of revenue due to meter tampering. As held in Siah Fishery Seafood Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2025] CLJU 700 (HC), Parliament has left the ascertainment process to TNB because of the inherent difficulties in such claims. Nevertheless, since the Energy Commission’s Guidelines recognise the above four methods, it is incumbent upon the Plaintiff to explain why it opted for Kaedah Ralat Kejituan (meter accuracy method). This Court found the explanation on the reliability of meter accuracy method in the form of test set presented by the Plaintiff as above-mentioned was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

Even so, this Court does not wholly accept the concept that TNB is best placed to determine, without scrutiny, the most accurate method of calculation. TNB must still justify its choice. In the present case, however, this Court is satisfied that Kaedah Ralat Kejituan (meter accuracy method), being a technical and skill-based method, was correctly applied in the Defendant’s best S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg interest. The central issue here is whether the Plaintiff, bearing the burden of proof, has discharged it on a balance of probabilities by adducing sufficient evidence of the estimate and how it was derived. Once this is done, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to prove that the estimate is manifestly unreasonable, excessive, or wrong (Tenaga Nasional Bhd v AWP Enterprise (M) Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 CLJ 400; [2015] 3 MLJ 268, CoA).

In this context, PW3 explained that the calculation commenced from 5 February 2019, as under the Guidelines stipulating that back-billing may be made up to five years prior to the date of discovery of tampering, which here was on 22 January 2024. PW4, who approved the back-billing calculation, confirmed that the total unrecorded consumption for the relevant period was 87,321 kWh , multiplied by the tariff rate together with operating costs and expenses, the total came to RM55,290.85.

Since actual consumption cannot be re-measured, only estimates are possible. If such estimates are not shown to be manifestly unreasonable, excessive, or wrong, they may be accepted as sufficient proof (AWP Enterprise case [supra]). The logic is simple. Consumers must pay for the electricity they consume and should not be allowed to benefit from tampering, which unfairly shifts the burden onto the public. Here, the Defendant merely argued on PW3’s inability to explain her calculation in open court during S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg cross-examination. Indeed, to the observation of this Court, it was found that PW3 was somewhat unclear and hesitant when questioned by the Defendant’s counsel. However, during re-examination, PW3 clarified that the correct figure of 1,131 kWh as referred earlier was derived from the period of 4 November 2023 until 3 December 2023 (531 + 600 = 1,131), but not from the period of 4 December 2023 until 3 January 2024 (705 + 600 = 1,305). This clarification, supported by her witness statement (Q.17, WS(SP3)) and Bundle B (page 19), rectified the earlier slip of the tongue.

This Court noted that the Plaintiff’s counsel skilfully used re-examination to repair the apparent damage and restore PW3’s credibility, demonstrating commendable advocacy. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that PW3 was a somewhat confused witness under cross-examination. This is the art of re-examination and beauty of advocacy in the trial.

Ultimately, if the Court were to dismiss TNB’s claim entirely despite proof of tampering, TNB would unfairly suffer the mischief Parliament intended to prevent. The principle remains that consumers must pay for electricity consumed. Where there is a proven error in calculation, the Court may order damages to be assessed (Evergrowth case [supra]). However, it is not the Court’s role to make its own independent calculations, rather it must decide S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg on the balance of probabilities based on the evidence and data presented by the parties before this Court.

In the current case, this Court is of considered view that the Defendant’s evidence consisted of a mere bare denial, without calling any expert to rebut the Plaintiff’s calculation of loss of revenue as being unreasonable (TNB v Everthrough Rubber Products Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1274, HC). On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s evidence was supported by technical guidelines, documentation and witnesses. This Court therefore found the Plaintiff’s version more probable.

Accordingly, this Court found that the Plaintiff has proved its claim in the sum of RM55,290.85 as a fair and reasonable amount in lieu of the loss of revenue arising from the Defendant’s tampering of the Plaintiff’s meter.

Having carefully examined the evidence and thoroughly considered the submissions from both parties, for the reasons as above-mentioned, it is my considered judgment that the Plaintiff’s claim is allowed in the following:- a) the amount owing in the judgment sum of RM55,290.85; S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg b) interest at the rate of 5% on the judgment sum from the date of judgment to the date of full realization; and c) costs fixed at RM5,000.00. Dated this 26 September 2025 SGD ------------------------------ (TEOH SHU YEE) MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATES’ COURT AT ALOR GAJAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF : Datuk Shashi Kannan & Ms. Reena Nair, TETUAN SASHI KANNAN & PARTNERS FOR THE DEFENDANT : En. Chin Choong Seong, TETUAN CHIN & YAU S/N sJpB4Uz4iUiFbwqGRkeNgg