What happened on each call
- 18 Sep, 15:20LG-1100% · Excellent
Clean: demand notice, legal time limits and settlement route explained accurately (call 1 of 2)
A recovery call that treated a borrower as somebody entitled to understand his own position. The officer separated three proceedings the borrower had merged into one — the write-off as a defaulted account, the formal demand notice with its sixty-day window closing on 31 October, and the cheque-bounce notice on the returned cheque whose fifteen-day period had expired two days earlier — and gave each its own date. He corrected the borrower’s belief that the property could be taken at any time, and then volunteered the right to reply to the notice and the bank’s obligation to answer it in writing with reasons. On settlement he disclaimed his own authority explicitly and warned the borrower against anybody who claims to be able to approve a figure, then held the uncomfortable point that a settled account reports as "settled" and not "closed" even when the borrower tried to dismiss it. He offered the nodal officer and Ombudsman route unprompted and sought no payment at all.
“Outstanding Rs 15,84,600 (principal Rs 14,62,000 + interest Rs 96,400 + charges Rs 26,200) · written off as defaulted 12 August 2026 · formal demand notice under the loan-recovery law served 1 September, 60-day window ends 31 October · right to reply in writing, bank must respond with reasons within 15 days · cheque-bounce notice on a returned security cheque issued 20 August, 15-day window expired 6 September · one-time settlement proposal invited, no figure committed”
- 229 Sep, 20:12LG-20% · Fatal
Fatal ×3: call placed at 20:12, abusive and coercive conduct, and threats with no proceeding behind them
Three weeks after the best call on this desk, the same officer made the worst. The settlement proposal came back at Rs 9,00,000 against an outstanding of Rs 15,84,600, the committee rejected it, and instead of a written rejection with reasons the borrower got a phone call at 20:12 — seventy-two minutes outside permitted contact hours, at the dinner table, which the co-borrower noted in her first sentence. What followed was the proposal called a joke, "every single one of you people", the borrower cut off while explaining the receivable he had already documented, an auction asserted for "next week" inside a legal time limit the officer had himself explained runs to 31 October, an arrest asserted in a cheque case where no complaint has been filed, the co-borrower told "then let us see who sleeps", a figure of Rs 12,00,000 demanded by Friday with no sanction behind it, and the call terminated on the word "Friday" while the borrower was still speaking. Everything the 8 September call earned was spent in six minutes, and both recordings sit on the same file.
“One-time settlement proposal Rs 9,00,000 against an outstanding of Rs 15,84,600, rejected by committee 29 September · call placed at 20:12, outside permitted contact hours · officer asserted arrest, police action and auction "next week" — none initiated · no written rejection communicated · no revised proposal invited · no promise to pay”
Dilip Chaudhari
Each stage, call by call — the last column shows the change from first to latest call
| Stage | Call 1 | Call 2 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Borrower Identification | 100% | 25% | -75 |
| 2. Disclosure & Opening | 100% | 31% | -69 |
| 3. Default Status & Notice | 100% | 15% | -85 |
| 4. Reason, Hardship & Capacity | 100% | 0% | -100 |
| 5. Settlement & Restructuring | 100% | 0% | -100 |
| 6. Promise to Pay | N/A | 0% | — |
| 7. Legal & Credit Record Consequences | 100% | 0% | -100 |
| 8. Closing, Grievance & Next Step | 100% | 0% | -100 |
| 9. Fair Conduct | 100% | 25% | -75 |
| Call score | 100% | 11% → 0%set to 0 by fatal breach |
The stage scores above show how the officer did on each part of the call. A fatal breach is zero-tolerance, so it sets the whole call score to 0, whatever the stage scores were: Call 2 scored 11% on its stages → 0% (3 fatals). The journey score follows the same rule.