TNB Case Summary: Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Kamarstone Sdn Bhd [2014] 1 MLJ 391

Facts: By 2 letters, TNB informed Kamarstone that TNB made a mistake in calculating the their electricity usage and as a result, the Kamarstone had been undercharged for 75 months.

TNB filed this suit to demand for RM581,876.77 as the unpaid amount for the undercharged. At the court, the judge held that according to reg 11(2) of Licensee Supply Regulations 1990, TNB could only claim for the undercharged amount for a period of only 3 months.

The issue arising in this appeal was whether the above determination of law was correct. TNB claimed that reg 11(2) was not applicable since the appellant's claim arose before an amendment on 15 December 2001.

Decision: apppeal is dismissed with costs:

Principle(s) held: the lower court was correct in the interpretation of reg 11(2). TNB had itself admitted that their cause of action arose from 13 January 2003. This shows that the claim arose after the amendment came into force.