Chapter 2 - Section 2.4Asset Quality and Delinquency Overview
This section discusses the delinquency in the microfinance industry during FY 2024-25, expressed in terms of Portfolio at Risk (PAR) for varying buckets. The PAR 30+ dpd surged to 6.2%, up significantly from 2.1% in the last financial year. The delinquency under various buckets depicted in the table below indicates that PAR under all buckets had deteriorated.
India Country
States/UTs-wise overall delinquency (in %) under different buckets as of March 2025 (in descending order of Loan Outstanding)
March 2023 742Lakh Unique Active Borrowers in Total
March 2024 867 Lakh Unique Active Borrowers in Total
Delinquency (in %) under various buckets for Industry as of March 2025 and March 2024
Area-wise segregation of No. of Loan Accounts, Unique Active Borrowers, Loan Outstanding, and PAR under different buckets
| PAR bucket (in %) | Mar-25 | Mar-24 |
|---|---|---|
| PAR 30-179 dpd | 6.2% | 2.1% |
| PAR 60-179 dpd | 4.8% | 1.6% |
| PAR 90-179 dpd | 3.5% | 0.9% |
| PAR 180+ dpd | 12.6% | 9.6% |
2.4 Asset Quality and Delinquency Overview
2.4.1 Delinquency (in %)
This section discusses the delinquency in the microfinance industry during FY 2024-25, expressed in terms of Portfolio at Risk (PAR) for varying buckets. The PAR 30+ dpd surged to 6.2%, up significantly from 2.1% in the last financial year. The delinquency under various buckets depicted in the table below indicates that PAR under all buckets had deteriorated.
Table 2.10 Delinquency (in %) under various buckets for Industry as of March 2025 and March 2024
| PAR bucket (in %) | Mar-25 | Mar-24 |
|---|---|---|
| PAR 30-179 dpd | 6.2% | 2.1% |
| PAR 60-179 dpd | 4.8% | 1.6% |
| PAR 90-179 dpd | 3.5% | 0.9% |
| PAR 180+ dpd | 12.6% | 9.6% |
State-wise data further corroborate this upward trend in delinquency across the industry. Detailed delinquency percentages by various buckets for each State and Union Territory are provided in Table 2.11.
Table 2.11: States/UTs-wise overall delinquency (in %) under different buckets as of March 2025 (in descending order of Loan Outstanding)
| S. No. | State/UT | Loan Outstanding (in ₹ Cr.) |
PAR 30-179 dpd (in %) |
PAR 60-179 dpd (in %) |
PAR 90-179 dpd (in %) |
PAR 180+ dpd (in %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bihar | 57,712 | 7.2% | 6.0% | 4.6% | 8.3% |
| 2 | Tamil Nadu | 46,833 | 6.6% | 5.3% | 3.6% | 10.0% |
| 3 | Uttar Pradesh | 41,774 | 6.8% | 5.5% | 4.1% | 10.6% |
| 4 | West Bengal | 36,730 | 3.2% | 2.6% | 1.8% | 10.5% |
| 5 | Karnataka | 35,351 | 10.2% | 5.7% | 3.7% | 7.1% |
| 6 | Maharashtra | 29,596 | 4.1% | 3.3% | 2.4% | 14.3% |
| 7 | Madhya Pradesh | 21,653 | 5.6% | 4.5% | 3.3% | 15.6% |
| 8 | Odisha | 20,719 | 8.5% | 7.1% | 5.5% | 17.4% |
| 9 | Rajasthan | 14,930 | 5.9% | 4.7% | 3.5% | 15.7% |
| 10 | Kerala | 11,273 | 4.8% | 3.9% | 2.2% | 19.0% |
| 11 | Jharkhand | 11,149 | 7.0% | 5.9% | 4.6% | 14.8% |
| 12 | Gujarat | 10,913 | 7.6% | 5.9% | 4.4% | 13.5% |
| 13 | Andhra Pradesh | 7,322 | 4.9% | 3.4% | 2.2% | 27.8% |
| 14 | Assam | 7,082 | 1.0% | 0.7% | 0.6% | 29.7% |
| 15 | Chhattisgarh | 6,553 | 6.0% | 5.2% | 4.0% | 13.6% |
| 16 | Telangana | 5,717 | 2.2% | 1.5% | 1.0% | 18.2% |
| 17 | Haryana | 5,138 | 3.7% | 3.0% | 2.1% | 15.0% |
| 18 | Punjab | 4,372 | 2.4% | 1.8% | 1.3% | 28.2% |
| 19 | Tripura | 2,169 | 3.1% | 2.3% | 1.4% | 9.7% |
| 20 | Uttarakhand | 1,749 | 4.7% | 3.8% | 2.7% | 13.4% |
| 21 | Puducherry | 671 | 5.2% | 4.1% | 2.9% | 10.9% |
| 22 | Delhi | 616 | 3.5% | 2.8% | 1.9% | 21.3% |
| 23 | Himachal Pradesh | 160 | 2.1% | 1.6% | 1.1% | 6.6% |
| 24 | Goa | 155 | 3.7% | 2.9% | 2.0% | 7.9% |
| 25 | Meghalaya | 139 | 1.0% | 0.6% | 0.3% | 16.7% |
| 26 | Sikkim | 131 | 6.4% | 4.0% | 1.1% | 13.2% |
| 27 | Mizoram | 111 | 1.9% | 1.4% | 0.9% | 5.9% |
| 28 | Arunachal Pradesh | 105 | 0.5% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 3.2% |
| 29 | Others | 90 | 8.9% | 6.3% | 5.5% | 22.7% |
| 30 | Jammu & Kashmir | 80 | 4.8% | 3.4% | 1.8% | 5.2% |
| 31 | Manipur | 80 | 5.0% | 4.1% | 3.1% | 71.4% |
| 32 | Nagaland | 68 | 0.3% | 0.3% | 0.2% | 3.5% |
| 33 | Chandigarh | 46 | 3.3% | 2.5% | 1.8% | 20.4% |
| 34 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands | 18 | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.2% | 3.1% |
| 35 | Dadra and Nagar Haveli | 14 | 3.2% | 2.4% | 1.8% | 13.1% |
| 36 | Daman and Diu | 7 | 4.3% | 3.4% | 2.7% | 8.5% |
| 37 | Lakshadweep | 0.02 | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 93.7% |
| Industry | 3,81,225 | 6.2% | 4.8% | 3.5% | 12.6% |
Delinquency levels have risen across the industry. States with significant loan outstanding, such as Rajasthan (5.9%), Madhya Pradesh (5.6%), Andhra Pradesh (4.9%), Kerala (4.8%), Maharashtra (4.1%), West Bengal (3.2%), and Telangana (2.2%), reported below the industry PAR 30+ dpd average of 6.2%. In contrast, major states including Karnataka (10.2%), Odisha (8.5%), Bihar (7.2%), Uttar Pradesh (6.8%), and Tamil Nadu (6.6%) exhibited PAR 30+ levels exceeding the industry average. The elevated PAR 180+ values primarily reflect loans that have become Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) over a period of time, and continued to be reported as receivables in credit bureau records. The PAR 180+ dpd for the last 3 years is at 9.6% (March 2024), 9.1% (March 2023), and 8.4% (March 2022), respectively.
Table 2.12 Area-wise segregation of No. of Loan Accounts, Unique Active Borrowers, Loan Outstanding, and PAR under different buckets
| Area | No. of Loan Accounts (in Lakhs) |
No. of Unique Active Borrowers (in Lakhs) |
Loan Outstanding (in ₹ Cr.) |
PAR 30-179 dpd (in %) |
PAR 60-179 dpd (in %) |
PAR 90-179 dpd (in %) |
PAR 180+ dpd (in %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural | 837 | 490 | 2,32,046 | 6.4% | 5.0% | 3.7% | 11.5% |
| Semi-Urban | 160 | 95 | 43,042 | 6.1% | 4.5% | 3.2% | 13.1% |
| Urban | 346 | 206 | 92,208 | 6.0% | 4.6% | 3.2% | 14.9% |
| Not Specified | 55 | 36 | 13,928 | 4.3% | 3.3% | 2.3% | 14.4% |
| Total | 1,399 | 828 | 3,81,225 | 6.2% | 4.8% | 3.5% | 12.6% |
As can be observed from Table 2.12 above, more than 60% of the loan outstanding, loan accounts, and unique active borrowers are in rural areas, while 25% are in urban areas, and the remaining 11% in semi-urban areas. A small portion of the loan is not clearly defined. The delinquency under different buckets across the different areas is more or less the same.