Clean: hardship identified, restructuring referral raised, part-payment promise taken

A mid-bucket call that treated a loss of income as a loss of income. The officer went past the broken 25 August promise to the cause — a contract that ended in June — then tested the recovery by asking whether the new job was confirmed in writing before offering anything. He gave the borrower the one date that actually matters, 10 October, and refused to let him believe an end-of-October salary would rescue it. The restructuring referral was raised with a document list and a response window and was explicitly not promised as an outcome. The promise taken was Rs 3,500, not the Rs 4,000 that had already failed once, because the officer asked for a number the borrower could keep. The only weakness is language: classification jargon arrived before the plain-English version.

“Two EMIs overdue Rs 3,120 × 2 = Rs 6,240 · bounce charges Rs 590 × 2 = Rs 1,180 · total overdue Rs 7,420 · written off as defaulted if unpaid by 10 October · promise to pay: Rs 3,500 on 20 September · restructuring referral raised for tenure extension”