ISLAMABAD: Consumer protection law occupies a foundational place in socio-legal framework, designed to safeguard ordinary citizens from arbitrary treatment by service providers, financial institutions, and administrative bodies. As economic activity increasingly intersects with government welfare schemes and digital payment systems, the boundaries of who qualifies as a “consumer” and who can be held liable as a “service provider” have taken on renewed significance for access to justice in Pakistan.
This question came before the Supreme Court in a case involving the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), the country’s flagship social safety net initiative. The apex court, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, set aside judgments by the Peshawar High Court’s Bannu Bench and the Consumer Protection Court, Bannu, both of which had held a BISP Deputy Director responsible for the blocking of a franchise retailer’s Point of Sale (POS) ID.
The dispute arose after respondent Fardayaz Khan, who operated as a POS retailer facilitating BISP fund disbursements, had his ID deactivated by Bank Alfalah in 2021. After his complaint to the Wafaqi Mohtasib was dismissed and left unchallenged, he filed a fresh complaint nearly two years later under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, naming the BISP official among several respondents.
The Consumer Court had ordered restoration of the ID, a decision upheld on appeal. However, the Supreme Court found that neither forum had adequately examined whether a consumer relationship actually existed between the parties — a threshold question going to the very jurisdiction of the Consumer Court.
The bench observed that the complainant had structured himself as a service provider — a retailer acting on behalf of franchise operators — rather than as a service acquirer entitled to protection under the Act. No documentary evidence, including any retailer agreement with BISP or its franchisees, was placed on record to establish the claimed relationship. The Court further noted that BISP’s own record of POS agents for the district did not list the complainant’s name.
Citing precedents on jurisdiction and privity of contract, including rulings from Pakistani, Indian, and English courts, the bench emphasised that the question of maintainability goes to the root of a case and must be decided at the threshold, rather than being bypassed on procedural grounds such as absence of prior notice.
While allowing the appeal and dismissing the original complaint, the Court did not leave the complainant without recourse. It directed the Director General (Cash Transfer) at BISP to conduct an inquiry, provide the complainant a hearing, disclose the reasons for the ID blockage, and pass a fresh order within 45 days – preserving his right to pursue an appropriate remedy through the correct forum.
