Court orders TNB to pay Plus RM10.5m over Penang Bridge fire
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has ordered Tenaga Nasional Bhd to pay highway concessionaire Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd (Plus) RM10.52 million over a fire beneath the Penang Bridge in February 2021.
Justice Ahmad Shahrir Salleh found that the fire was caused by electrical arcing originating from pre-existing mechanical damage to a high-voltage cable owned and maintained by TNB...
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has ordered Tenaga Nasional Bhd to pay highway concessionaire Projek Lebuhraya Usahasama Bhd (Plus) RM10.52 million over a fire beneath the Penang Bridge in February 2021.
Justice Ahmad Shahrir Salleh found that the fire was caused by electrical arcing originating from pre-existing mechanical damage to a high-voltage cable owned and maintained by TNB.
He rejected TNB’s contention that accumulated combustible material was probably ignited by a discarded cigarette entering the cable tunnel through a broken drainpipe.
According to Shahrir's written grounds of judgment, TNB’s own fire simulation required five burning cigarette butts before the test material ignited.
The judge also described TNB’s alternative explanation that only the fifth cigarette caused the ignition as an “afterthought”.
He said the theory also required a lit cigarette to pass through a narrow opening, land on enough dry combustible material and remain alight.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2020/01/5346713d4c211595f52c686dd3f8e726.jpg)
“On the facts and evidence before this court, I find that sequence to be more speculative compared with a fault arising from mechanical damage already shown to exist at that location,” Shahrir said.
The fire occurred near Pier 52E at about 4.20pm on Feb 22, 2021, damaging structural beams and requiring Plus to undertake immediate and subsequent repairs.
Failed to repair visible damage
Both parties’ experts agreed that arcing occurred only in the blue-phase cable of one circuit. However, they disagreed on whether the arcing caused the fire or resulted from an external blaze.
Shahrir preferred the evidence of Plus’ fire investigator Anand Ghnavello, who inspected the scene shortly after the incident, over TNB’s expert, who was appointed more than three years later and did not personally visit the site.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2021/02/3867216c6a2e3c7c652a7bd659e2010e.jpg)
The court also found visible cut marks where polymer ropes had been used to secure the cables, with the damage extending beneath the cable’s outer sheath.
TNB breached the high standard of care required of an entity controlling high-voltage electricity by failing to detect and repair the damage before it developed into arcing and fire, the judge ruled.
Shahrir also drew an adverse inference against TNB for failing to produce its maintenance guidelines, historical cable-testing data and photographs of abnormalities recorded during routine inspections.
He said TNB also failed to call the subcontractors responsible for cleaning and inspecting the tunnel.
As such, the court found TNB liable in negligence and for breaching its statutory duty under Section 33A of the Electricity Supply Act 1990.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2021/02/deb3b62e41b0555844f48e4c28371920.jpg)
“For these reasons, this court finds that the fire incident was caused by electrical arcing. That arcing originated from pre-existing mechanical damage to the blue phase cable.
“TNB breached both its common law duty of care and its statutory duty under section 33A of the ESA 1990, by failing to detect and repair that damage.
“This court further finds that this breach caused the fire incident and the loss that followed from it,” said Shahrir in the conclusion of his judgment.
Exemplary damages rejected
The RM10.52 million award comprises RM660,520.80 for structural assessment and remedial design, RM9.69 million for repair works, RM114,731.22 for investigating the fire and RM50,000 for a discovery application.
TNB must also pay five percent annual interest from the date of the fire until the judgment date, with interest continuing at the same rate until full settlement.
Plus was awarded another RM400,000 in legal costs.
However, the court rejected its claim for exemplary damages, finding that TNB’s conduct amounted to a sustained and culpable failure of detection and maintenance but did not demonstrate malice, vindictiveness or deliberate disregard of Plus’ rights.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2021/01/8d2e3060d6ef020b772519e8ff2dcac6.jpg)



Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.