ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Saturday ruled that a complaint filed by a Point-of-Sale (PoS) agent against the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) over the blocking of his retailer ID was not maintainable under consumer protection laws, as the relationship did not constitute a “consumer service” arrangement.
A two-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, issued the verdict on an appeal filed by BISP Deputy Director Muhammad Ishaq against the Nov 6, 2025 order of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu bench, in a consumer protection appeal.
The Supreme Court, however, set aside the judgements of the Consumer Protection Court, Bannu, as well as the PHC, which had earlier directed the BISP and Bank Alfalah to restore the agent’s ID.
“We held that [the] complaint under Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act of 1997 was not maintainable,” observed Mazhar in a 14-page order.
Rules Point-of-Sale agent cannot invoke consumer law
However, in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court also directed the BISP director general (cash transfer), Islamabad, to conduct an inquiry and afford ample opportunity of hearing to respondent Fardayaz Khan, the complainant, to explain the reasons for blocking his alleged PoS agent’s ID. The authority was also directed to confront him with any complaint received against him by the BISP Directorate and then pass an appropriate order within 45 days, so that he may have recourse to an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
The case was initiated by the respondent, who claimed to be a PoS retailer operating under a franchise agreement for distributing BISP payments. His ID was deactivated by Bank Alfalah in May 2021. After his complaint to the Wafaqi Mohtasib was dismissed, he approached the Consumer Protection Court under the KP Consumer Protection Act, nearly two years later.
The Consumer Court had on July 1, 2025 issued directives for the BISP and Bank Alfalah to restore Fardayaz Khan’s ID or provide written reasons for its blockage, even though there was no proof of any action taken by the BISP in this regard.
Justice Mazhar observed that the complainant was himself a service provider as a retailer and not a “service acquirer” entitled to claim the benefits of the BISP Act, 2010.
The judgement noted that no contract or consumer relationship existed between the complainant and the BISP. Since the substratum of the complaint was defective from its inception, the verdict said, the complaint was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
The Supreme Court also highlighted that the complainant’s name did not appear in BISP’s list of PoS agents for Bannu district, which belied his contention.
Justice Mazhar explained that the universal aim of consumer protection laws was to safeguard consumers’ interests from unscrupulous and deceptive business practices. In order to counterbalance the imbalance between corporations/manufacturers/service providers and consumers, the right to information, choice and a forum for redressal is also provided to ensure fair treatment on the trading floor, the judgement observed.
This special law ensures that products are safe for use and prevents the sale of defective goods, proscribes deceitful advertising, disingenuous pricing and unfair contracts, ensures clear and accurate information about products, and provides procedures for consumers to seek refunds, replacements or repairs and file complaints against fraudulent business activities, the judgement said.
The main focus of consumer protection laws globally is to keep sellers honest and protect purchasers of goods from fraudulent or deceptive marketing or unfair marketing gimmicks.
“These laws are vigorous for modern society so that the consumers may be treated fairly and squarely and can seek justice against defective goods and services while maintaining equilibrium in the power dynamics between consumers and conglomerates ethically with the tools to address disputes or complaints,” the verdict said.
It added that such protection was necessary because advertisements for products sometimes mislead consumers with exaggerated claims about their products or services but fail to meet the expected quality or result. At other times, they carry hidden fees or confusing clauses that amount to unfair business practices.
In recent times, consumer protection laws have also covered e-commerce and digital transactions globally, with the same level of fairness, transparency and consumer rights as brick-and-mortar stores, the judgement said.
Published in Dawn, August 9th, 2026
