A Sessions Court has ruled that a shoplot owner must pay Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) more than RM26,000 following an “undercharged” electricity bill dispute. The utility giant initiated the legal suit against the owner, Choo Lee Chen, in 2024 after discovering irregularities in electricity consumption at her property. TNB contended that the irregular usage was linked to Bitcoin mining activities, which typically require significant and sustained power draws that were not being reflected in the recorded meter readings.
The case originated from a site inspection conducted by TNB officers in July 2020 at a shoplot located in Kota Bayu Emas Pendamar, Port Klang. During the technical audit, technicians discovered that the electricity meter had been tampered with. Specifically, the inspection revealed that wiring from the incoming supply isolator had been illegally rerouted to bypass the meter entirely, directing power straight to a distribution box and allowing for unrecorded electricity consumption.
In her defence, Choo argued that she had previously rented the shoplot to a third-party company and maintained that the tenant should be held responsible for the electricity usage and any tampering. However, TNB sought to recover a total of RM61,310.05 in unpaid bills from Choo as the registered account holder. After a thorough review of the utility company’s calculations and the evidence presented, Judge Noorhisham Jaafar granted TNB a judgment sum of RM26,146.70.
The court’s judgment emphasised that Choo remained liable as the unit owner and the registered consumer, citing the established contractual relationship between her and TNB. Judge Noorhisham clarified that under the Electricity Supply Act, contractual and statutory obligations remain with the registered consumer until the account is lawfully transferred to another party or formally terminated. This principle ensures that the utility provider has a clear point of accountability for the services rendered to a specific premises.
A critical factor in the court’s decision was the timeline of the tenancy, as evidence showed the tenant had moved out in April 2019, more than a year before the TNB inspection took place in mid-2020. The judge noted a lack of evidence or testimony from the former tenant to support Choo’s claims. Furthermore, the court highlighted Choo’s inaction following the tenant’s departure, noting that no police reports or civil proceedings were initiated against the firm, which contradicted her current legal stance regarding the responsibility for the meter tampering.
