SC sets aside consumer court proceedings against BISP official

ISLAMABAD, Aug 10 (APP):The Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of a consumer court requires a legal relationship between the parties as consumer and service provider, or a legally recognized relationship involving payment for a service, and that merely making a person a party to a complaint does not confer jurisdiction on a consumer court.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali converted into an appeal and allowed a civil petition filed by Muhammad Ishaq, Deputy Director, Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), Bannu.

The court set aside the July 1, 2025 judgment of the Bannu Consumer Protection Court and the November 6, 2025 judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, and dismissed the complaint filed before the consumer court.

In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the primary purpose of consumer protection laws was to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices. However, a consumer court could entertain only those matters falling within the legal relationship of consumer, goods or services contemplated by law.

The court noted that the complainant himself had claimed that he was working as a retailer or agent for franchises under the BISP scheme. However, there was no retailer agreement between him and BISP, nor any documentary evidence on record establishing that BISP had provided him a service or received any consideration from him for such service.

The court further observed that BISP had produced a list of point-of-sale (POS) agents operating in Bannu district, but the complainant’s name did not appear on the list.

The Supreme Court held that the very basis of the complaint was defective and, therefore, it was not maintainable before the consumer court. It observed that both the consumer court and the High Court had failed to examine the fundamental question of jurisdiction and the legal relationship between the parties, and instead decided the matter on the basis that the complainant had not been given notice before his retailer ID was blocked.

The judgment clarified that jurisdiction goes to the root of a case and any order or judgment passed by a court lacking jurisdiction cannot legally be sustained. The question of jurisdiction, it added, should be determined at the outset of proceedings.

The Supreme Court also noted that under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, a consumer complaint was required to be filed within 10 days, while the law allowed extension of the period in specified circumstances subject to prescribed conditions.

The court held that in the present case, no consumer relationship between the complainant and BISP had been established that could attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1997.

However, in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court directed the Director General, Cash Transfer, BISP, Islamabad, to investigate the reasons for blocking the complainant’s retailer POS agent ID and provide him a full opportunity of hearing. He should also be informed if any complaint had been received by BISP against him.

The court directed the Director General, Cash Transfer, BISP, to pass an appropriate order within 45 days, enabling the complainant to approach the appropriate forum available to him under the law.

The Supreme Court said the civil petition was converted into an appeal and allowed with the above directions, while the detailed reasons were issued in support of its short order dated March 10, 2026.