Arvind Goyal Final Project

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT
ON
IMPACT OF BRAND TRUST AND BRAND SATISFACTION
ON CONSUMER LOYALTY IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Business Administration (2016-2018)
Submitted to
Department of Business Administration
Punjab College of Technical Education, Baddowal, Ludhiana.
Affiliated to Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.
Research Supervisor Submitted by

Mr. Amit Sethi Arvind Goyal
Assistant Professor Roll No. 1620534
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr.Arvind Goyal, Roll No.1620534 has undergone aResearch Project
on “Impact of brand trust and brand satisfaction on consumer loyalty in automobile sector”
under my supervision in the specialization area of Marketing. The work embodied in this
report is original and is of the standard expected of an MBA student and has not been
submitted in part or full to this or any other university for the award of any degree or
diploma. He /She has completed all requirements of guidelines for Research Project
Report. The work is fit for evaluation.
Signature of Supervisor
Mr. Amit Sethi
Assistant Professor
DECLARATION
This is to certify that the Project Report entitled “Impact of brand trust and brand
satisfaction on consumer loyalty in automobile sector” is an originalwork and has not been
submitted is part or full to any other university/institution for the award ofany degree or
diploma.
Signature of student
Arvind Goyal
Roll No. 1620534
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my deep and profound sense of gratitude to my Project guide Mr.Amit Sethi,
PCTE, Ludhiana for his guidance and constructive support in the completion of this
study. His able guidance at each step of the project helped me to broaden my outlooks on
the project & in successful completion of the project. I shall always remember his polite
way of correction & constant encouragement by asking various questions.
I specially thank all the faculty members of PCTE for having equipped me with the skills
and the ability through their inputs, which assisted me in the completion of the project. I
wish to thank all those people who have directly or indirectly been instrumental in
successful completion of the project report.
I would like to thank all the respondents who spared few moments from their precious time
to fill the questionnaires and help me getting the required information.
Arvind Goyal
Roll No. 1620534
ABSTRACT
The brand trust and brand satisfaction has been an important research topic among
marketing researchers since it was first identified. A challenging question facing today’s
brand managers is how to understand the appropriate relationship between constructs of
brand equity and customer loyalty, particularly in relation to a number of known
antecedents to brand loyalty in marketing literature. The research was examined various
brand strategies those influence the brand decision and also analysed the importance of
various factors like brand trust, brand knowledge and consumer satisfaction in automobile
sector.The present study follows a descriptive design. In a way it includes survey and fact finding
of different kinds, methods of data collection were used. The selection of the 200 respondents
was done on the basis of judgmental sampling technique. The
respondentspersonallyfilled the questionnaires and their attributes regarding the study
were collected.The studyalso shows that the customer loyalty effect only 35% for customer
satisfaction and brand trust which is negligible. From the finding it can be revealed that
there is a weak correlation between all variables like brand trust, customer satisfaction and
customer loyal. In case brand trust is much significantly and strong relationship with
customer satisfaction as compared to customer loyalty.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. no. CONTENTS Page no.
Chapter – 1 Introduction
Chapter – 2 Review of Literature
Chapter – 3 Research Methodology
Chapter - 4 Analysis and interpretation
Findings, Limitations, Suggestions and conclusion

Chapter – 5
Bibliography
Annexure
LIST OF TABLE
S.No. Table Name Page No.
Table 1.1 Category-wise Production of Automobiles in India

Table 1.2 Category-wise Domestic Sales of Automobiles in India
Table 1.3 Sales of Indian Automobile players
Table 4.1 Demographic profile of respondents
Table 4.2 showing frequency of respondents trust the automobile manufacturer,
they are evaluated
Table 4.3 showing frequency of respondents rely on the manufacturer of the
automobile I they are evaluating.
Table 4.4 showing the manufacturer of automobile, respondents are evaluating is a
dependable
Table 4.5 showing the number of respondents thinks that the manufacturer of
automobile, they are evaluated is honest.
Table 4.6 showing the manufacturer of automobile respondents are evaluating is a
safe company with which to conduct business.
Table 4.7 depicting the number of respondents consider the manufacturer of the
automobile they are evaluated to be generally trustworthy.
Table 4.8 showing the number of respondents believe that manufacturer of the
automobile they are evaluating does not take advantage of its customers.
Table 4.9 showing number of respondents consider the company andpeople who
stand behind the automobile they are evaluated to be trustworthy.
Table 4.10 depicting that the automobile has exceeded respondents highest expectations
Table 4.11 showing the number of respondents rely on manufacturer of the
automobile they are evaluating
Table 4.12 showing the automobile is exactly what respondents needed.
Table 4.13 showing the respondents choice to buy or lease this piece ofautomobile
was a wise one
Table 4.14 showing the respondents are satisfied with their decision to buy or lease
the piece of automobile.
Table 4.15 depicting that respondents are sure that it was the right thing to do to
buy or lease the automobile.
Table 4.16 showing the respondents opinion towards experience with automobile.
Table 4.17 showing the respondents has been delighted with the automobile, they
are evaluating.
Table 4.18 showing the respondents use automobile from the company they are
evaluating because it is the best choice for us.
Table 4.19 showing the respondents consider myself to be a loyal patron of the
manufacturer of of automobile, they are evaluated.
Table 4.20 showing the respondents are committed to manufacturer of
automobile they are evaluated.
Table 4.21 showing the respondents would be willing to pay a higher price for
automobile from the manufacturer I am evaluatingover competitive
offerings.
Table 4.22 showing the respondent consider the manufacturer they are evaluating
our first choice when buying/leasing automobile.
Table 4.23 showing the if respondents had it to all over again, they had buy or lease
automobile from a different company.
Table 4.24 showing the respondents intend to keep buying the automobile they are
evaluated.
Table 4.25 showing the respondents would not switch to a competitor, even if I had
a problem with the products/services of the automobile I am evaluating.
Table 4.26 showing the respondents intend to purchase automobile from the
manufacturer they are evaluated in the future.
Table 4.26 Showing correlation between independent variables and dependent
variables.
Table 4.27 Regression model summary of independent variable and dependent
variables.
LIST OF FIGURE
S.No. Figure Name Page No.
Figure 1.1 Category-wise Share in Automobile Production in India (2015-16)
Figure 1.2 Automobile Production in India: Recent Trends

Figure 1.3 Car makers Market share in India
Figure 1.4 yearly performance of passenger vehicles sub segments – PC, UVs and
Vans
Figure 4.2 showing frequency of respondents trust the automobile manufacturer,
they are evaluated
Figure 4.3 showing frequency of respondents rely on the manufacturer of the
automobile I they are evaluating.
Figure 4.4 showing the manufacturer of automobile, respondents are evaluating is a
dependable
Figure 4.5 showing the number of respondents thinks that the manufacturer of
Figure 4.6 showing the manufacturer of automobile respondents are evaluating is a
safe company with which to conduct business.
Figure 4.7 depicting the number of respondents consider the manufacturer of the
Figure 4.8 showing the number of respondents believe that manufacturer of the
automobile they are evaluating does not take advantage of its customers.
Figure 4.9 showing number of respondents consider the company andpeople who
stand behind the automobile they are evaluated to be trustworthy.
Figure 4.10 depicting that the automobile has exceeded respondents highest expectations
Figure 4.11 showing the number of respondents rely on manufacturer of the
automobile they are evaluating
Figure4.12 showing the automobile is exactly what respondents needed.
Figure 4.13 showing the respondents choice to buy or lease this piece ofautomobile
was a wise one
Figure 4.14 showing the respondents are satisfied with their decision to buy or lease
the piece of automobile.
Figure 4.15 depicting that respondents are sure that it was the right thing to do to
buy or lease the automobile.
Figure 4.16 showing the respondents opinion towards experience with automobile.
Figure 4.17 showing the respondents has been delighted with the automobile, they
are evaluating.
Figure 4.18 showing the respondents use automobile from the company they are
evaluating because it is the best choice for us.
Figure 4.19 showing the respondents consider myself to be a loyal patron of the
manufacturer of of automobile, they are evaluated.
Figure 4.20 showing the respondents are committed to manufacturer of
automobile they are evaluated.
Figure 4.21 showing the respondents would be willing to pay a higher price for
automobile from the manufacturer I am evaluatingover competitive
offerings.
Figure 4.22 showing the respondent consider the manufacturer they are evaluating
our first choice when buying/leasing automobile.
Figure 4.23 showing the if respondents had it to all over again, they had buy or lease
Figure 4.24 showing the respondents intend to keep buying the automobile they are
evaluated.
Figure 4.25 showing the respondents would not switch to a competitor, even if I had
a problem with the products/services of the automobile I am evaluating.
Figure 4.26 showing the respondents intend to purchase automobile from the
CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The brand trust and brand satisfaction has been an important research topic among
marketing researchers since it was first identified. This concept has attracted the renewed
attention in recent years due to emergence of relationship marketing which emphasizes
establishing long term relationships between customers and organizations. Facing fierce
competition and limited resources marketers have shifted their focus from acquiring new
customers to retaining existing customers. As a result brand loyalty has become the core of
brand customer relationships. A challenging question facing today’s brand managers is
how to understand the appropriate relationship between constructs of brand equity and
customer loyalty, particularly in relation to a number of known antecedents to brand
loyalty in marketing literature.
This study makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge by assessing the

relationships between customer satisfaction, brand trust, and perception of customer
loyalty using regression analysis. Similar studies have been conducted in western countries
in various industrial and customer settings but as to our knowledge, no such study has been
conducted in India. Present study is divided into various parts. First, to explore the
theoretical context, secondly to identify various hypotheses based on the theoretical
foundation of marketing and branding literature. Study will also attempt to empirically
validate our research model and its findings. This study has value in the sense that, as to our
knowledge, no such study has been conducted in the context of India market.
Brand trust, brand satisfaction and brand loyalty were reported as important and significant
factors that affect brand equity. All these factors brand trust, loyalty and satisfactions
significantly influence customers' loyalty to car brands and repurchase of car brands. The
items for measuring the dimensions of CBBE by these studies were adapted from the
general brand equity studies and were reworded to suit the performance or attributes of
automotive products.
1.2 Consumer Loyalty
Consumer loyalty is a scenario where the consumer fears purchasing and consuming
product from another brand which he does not trust. It is measured through methods like
word of mouth publicity, repetitive buying, price sensitivity, commitment, brand trust,
customer satisfaction, etc. Brand loyalty is the extent to which a consumer constantly buys
the same brand within a product category. The consumers remain loyal to a specific brand
as long as it is available. They do not buy from other suppliers within the product category.
Brand loyalty exists when the consumer feels that the brand consists of right product
characteristics and quality at right price. Even if the other brands are available at cheaper
price or superior quality, the brand loyal consumer will stick to his brand.
Today marketers are seeking information on how to build customer loyalty. The increased
profits from loyalty come from reduced marketing costs, increased sales and reduced
operational costs. Further, loyal customers provide strong word-of-mouth, create business
referrals, provide references and serve on advisory boards. Hence, customer loyalty has a
powerful impact on firm’s performance and is considered by many companies an
important source of competitive advantage. Consistently high levels of customer loyalty
not only create tremendous competitive advantage but also boost employee morale and
productivity. On the other hand, persistent customer defection has a devastating impact on
a company’s performance . Further, the benefits of customer loyalty to a provider of either
services or products include lower customer price sensitivity, reduced expenditure on
attracting new customers, improved organisational profitability. Furthermore, loyalty can
be towards a brand, product or service outlet. Loyalty also leads to positive attitudes and
behaviours, such as repeat patronage and purchases and positive recommendations, which
influence other actual or potential customers. A loyal customer base is a valuable asset for
an organisation. It reduces the need to seek new customers and generates accurate feedback
that the organisation’s products and services are meeting the needs of a particular group of
people. Moreover, loyal customers buy more, needless information as compared to
non-loyal customers and are less likely to switch even because of slightly higher prices.
They serve as an information source for other customers and also act as part time
employees.
Customers can be loyal due to high switching barriers or lack of available alternatives and
also because they are satisfied and thus, want to continue the relationship. As most barriers
appear to be of limited durability, companies tend to approach satisfaction as the only
viable strategy in the long run. Another important element of loyalty is the intended
support of the product expressed in communicating one’s experiences, i.e., positive
word-of-mouth. Thus, one of the most powerful sources in persuasion is positive
word-of-mouth. When a company’s customers recommend the product to others, this
reflects a high degree of loyalty (Selnes 1993). Further, customers who have not developed
loyalty to the service provider are more likely to perceive their exchange relationship as
more short term, purely economic with lower expectations for fairness beyond the one time
encounter.
In this context, Dick and Basu (1994) argued that loyalty is determined by the strength of
the relationship between relative attitude and repeat patronage and that it has both
attitudinal and behavioural elements. The combination of these enable us to distinguish
two types of customer loyalty concepts, i.e., loyalty based on inertia, where a brand is
bought out of habit merely because this takes less effort and customer will not hesitate to
switch to another brand if there is some convenient reason to do so. Secondly, true brand
loyalty, which is a form of repeat purchasing behaviour reflecting a conscious decision to
continue buying the same brand, must be accompanied by an underlying positive attitude
and a high degree of commitment towards the brand.
Further, Dick and Basu (1994) proposed four conditions related to loyalty:
1. Loyalty signifies a favourable correspondence between relative and repeat patronage.
2. Latent loyalty is associated with high relative attitude, but low repeat patronage.
3. Spurious loyalty occurs when a consumer frequently purchases a brand but sees no
significant difference among brands.
4. No loyalty exists in a category when customers see few differences between alternative
brands and there are low repeat purchases.
Further, Rundle-Thiele (2005) in his paper studied the dimensions of loyalty as situational
loyalty, price sensitivity, propensity to be loyal, attitudinal loyal and complaining
behaviour. The dimensions of customer loyalty, i.e., recommendation and patronage were
studied by Lam et al. (2004).
Krishnamurthi and Raj (1991) showed that loyals are less price sensitive than non loyals in
the choice decision but more price sensitive in the quantity decision (Burke and Ground
coffee) whereas Dick and Basu (1994) demonstrated that loyalty is more prevalent among
service customers than among customers of tangible products. In the services context,
intangible attributes such as reliability and confidence play a major role in building or
maintaining loyalty.
Robbins and Miller (2004) emphasised that effectiveness of service recovery in various
industries (phone/cable TV services, restaurants, electronics retail and repair) has the
strongest influence on loyal customers. Moreover, attitudinal loyalty, complaining
behaviour, situational loyalty, propensity to be loyal and resistance to competing offers,
reflect the loyalty of a wine retail brand (Rundle- Thiele 2005).
Keiningham et al. (2007) indicated that intention to recommend alone will not suffice as a
single predictor of customers‟ loyalty behaviour in relation to retail banking, mass
merchant retail and internet service providers.
1.3 Brand Trust

Brand Trust is define as “the degree to which an individual is confident, and eager to act on
the basis of the words, actions and results of other. Brand trust is basically the emotional
commitment of the customers with brand. Marketers are now days very much interested in
trust because mostly it is observed that higher trust ratings are positively related to loyalty.
Studies elaborated that trust plays an important role in customer repeated purchase
decision and long term customer satisfaction. Brand trust development is a long term
process, a trustworthy brand cares the customer expectations, fulfill promises and value its
customers that eventually leads to brand trust and reliability. Present study is carried out to
gauge the strength of relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty.
It is a promise of brand with their customers to fulfil their expectations. Brand trust is an
important item that helps customer loyal to the brand. Without the trust on brand customer
can’t enter in loyalty set.
To build a trust it’s important for the Consumer to take and asses the information from the
product. Companies can build emotional trust if they can prove that the brand is only
for the customers and meet their expectations (e.g. brand is trustworthiness and friendly for
the family use).Consistent brand demonstrate this specific behaviour. The customers trust
on specified brand functions and willingness to purchase the brand from the product class.
The vagueness in the situation can be diminishes b ythe trust through which customer can
rely on the specific trusted brand product. Brand loyalty is a result of brand trust or
promises that build the highly valued connections Morgan and Hunt 1994, Chaudhuri and
Holbrook, 2001).Some scholars defined commitment as "an enduring desire to maintain a
valued relationship" (Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpande1992).So promises are the cause
of constant on going and retaining a relationship build between company and consumer.
1.4 Brand Satisfaction

Satisfaction is traditionally considered as an overall affective response resulting from the
use of a product or service. It is believed to have a direct influence on customer loyalty and
repurchase behavior. Many agree on a direct affect of satisfaction on loyalty but some other
researchers have focused more on identifying moderators and/or mediators of the effect of
satisfaction on loyalty. Bloemer and Lemmink examined the assumed positive influence of
customer satisfaction on loyalty in a car sales context. Specifically, three different types of
customer satisfaction (satisfaction with the car, satisfaction with the sales service, and
satisfaction with the after-sales service), and two kinds of loyalty (brand loyalty and dealer
loyalty) were differentiated and measured. Their results supported the hypothesis that
customer satisfaction with the car is a major determinant of brand loyalty, while sales
service satisfaction and after-sales service are major determinants of dealer loyalty.
However, dealer loyalty was found to be an intervening variable in the relation between
satisfaction and brand loyalty. It was additionally found that the strength of the relationship
between different types of satisfaction and loyalty indicators differs between various
market segments. Other studies anticipate direct, linear, and positive effect of satisfaction
on loyalty. Brand loyalty should increase rapidly after customer satisfaction passes a
certain threshold. Consistent with this “threshold” argument, it has been found that
“delighted” customers have a much higher probability of retention than those who are
merely satisfied. A series of recent studies have also found evidence of nonlinearities for
the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral loyalty.
Customer satisfaction has long been recognised in marketing thought and practice as a
central concept as well as an important goal of all business activities. In fact, there are at
least two different conceptualizations of customer satisfaction, one is transaction-specific
and other is cumulative. Transaction- specific satisfaction provides specific diagnostic
information about a particular product or service encounter.
In contrast, cumulative customer satisfaction is an overall evaluation based on the total

purchase and consumption experiences with a product or service overtime, which is more
fundamental and useful than transaction – specific consumer satisfaction in predicting a
consumer’s subsequent behaviour and a firm’s past, present and future performance. It is
cumulative customer satisfaction that motivates a firm’s investment in customer
satisfaction (Wang and Lo 2002). Further, customer satisfaction is generally defined as a
feeling or judgement by customers towards products or services after they have used them.
Though customer satisfaction is essential for survival but customers who are retained may
not always be satisfied and satisfied customers may not always be retained. So, this creates
a challenge for maintaining high levels of service, awareness of customer expectations and
improvements in services and product. However, satisfied customers are the assets of an
organisation that ensure a regular cash flow for the business in the future.
Further, it is generally argued that if customers are satisfied with a particular product or
service offering after its use, then they are likely to engage in repeat purchases and try line
extensions. Moreover, customers are also likely to convey others of their favourable
experiences and thus, engage in positive word-of-mouth advertising whereas dissatisfied
consumers are likely to switch brands and engage in negative word-of-mouth advertising.
High customer satisfaction has many benefits for the firm, such as increased loyalty for
current suppliers, reduced price elasticities, insulation of current suppliers from
competitive efforts, lower costs of future transactions, reduced failure costs, lower costs of
attracting new customers and an enhanced reputation for the firm. Moreover, it is believed
that customer satisfaction is a good, if not the best, indicator of a firm’s future profits.
Levesque and McDougall (1996) found that service problems and bank’s service recovery
ability have a major impact on customer satisfaction and intentions to switch. Mooradian
and Oliver (1997) in their study revealed that satisfaction leads to repeat purchase
intentions. Mai and Ness (2006) indicated that customer satisfaction is associated with
both service and product features of mail order speciality food. Suh and Yi (2006) showed
that customer satisfaction has greater effect on brand loyalty and brand attitudes when
product involvement is low (i.e., household goods). In contrast, corporate image and
attitudes toward the advertisement have more effect on brand attitudes and attitude has
more effect on loyalty when product involvement is high, i.e., cosmetics. Further, Bontis,
Booker, and Serenko (2007) found that customer satisfaction enhances reputation in the
service environment.
1.5 Brief of Indian Automobile Sector

It was in 1897 that the first car ran on an Indian road. Through the 1930s, cars were
imported only, and in very small numbers. The evolution of the Indian automobile
manufacturing began with the launching of Hindustan Motors in 1942, Premier in 1944
(building Chrysler, Dodge, and Fiat products), and Mahindra & Mahindra in 1945.
Following the country’s independence in 1947, the Government of India and the private
sector launched efforts to create an automotivecomponent manufacturing industry to
supply to the automobile industry. In 1953, an import substitution programme was
launched resulting in restriction on the import of fully built-up vehicles. This was also a
period of slow growth, owing to nationalization and the license raj that hampered the
growth of Indian private sector. It was during the 1970s, with restrictions on the import of
vehicles firmly in place, that the automotive industry started to grow; but the growth was
mainly driven by tractors, commercial vehicles and scooters, while the cars had remained a
major luxury item. Eventually, following liberalization, multinational automakers, such as,
Suzuki and Toyota of Japan and Hyundai of South Korea, among others, were allowed to
invest in the Indian market, furthering the establishment of an automotive industry in India.
Maruti Suzuki was the first, and the most successful of these entrants. During the 1990s, as
the country entered into the era of privatization and liberalization, a number of foreign
automobile firms formed joint ventures with existing Indian companies. The variety of
options available to the consumers began to multiply, and by the turn of the new
millennium, there were 12 large automotive companies who had established
manufacturing set up in the Indian market.
The Indian automobile industry manufactures almost all major transport vehicles such as
cars, multi-utility vehicles, light commercial vehicles, buses, trucks, tractors, motorcycles,
scooters, mopeds and threewheelers. At present, India is the largest manufacturer of
tractors, second largest manufacturer of two wheelers and buses, fifth largest heavy truck
manufacturer, sixth largest car manufacturer and eighth largest commercial vehicle
manufacturer in the world.
1.5.1 Trends in Production
Figure 1.1 Category-wise Share in Automobile Production in India (2015-16)

Source: SIAM; EXIM Bank Research1
1
Export-Import Bank of India, retrieved from
https://www.eximbankindia.in/Assets/Dynamic/PDF/Publication-Resources/ResearchPap
ers/81file.pdf accessed on 4th May 2018.
The last few years have seen a fluctuating trend in the production of automobiles in India,
both in value and quantity terms. While growth declined during 2012-13, and recently in
2015-16, the industry registered positive y-o-y growths during other intervening periods.
The volume of production of Indian automobile industry has increased at a CAGR of over
6% during the period 2011- 12 to 2015-16. By 2026, India is expected to be the third
largest automotive market by volume in the world. A growing working population and an
expanding middleclass are expected to remain key demand drivers. GDP per capita has
grown from USD 1,432 in 2010 to USD 1,500 in 2012, and is expected to reach USD 1,869
by 2018.
Figure 1.2 Automobile Producton in India: Recent Trends

2
1.5.2 Production in Individual Categories
As the demand has grown over the years, so has the production of automobiles. However,
sub-segments such as commercial vehicles and three-wheelers have witnessed a decline in
production for couple of years. Passenger vehicles and two-wheelers have seen a
significant rise in the years under consideration, thus implying demand growth in these
segments. The two-wheelers segment constituted a major share of the total production of
automobiles in the country, accounting for 79% of the production in the year 2015-16,
followed by the passenger vehicles segment, with a share of around 14%. The
three-wheelers constituted around 4% followed by the commercial vehicles at 3%. The
production of two-wheelers has grown consistently every year during the analyzed period
(2010-11 to 2015-16). On the other hand, the production of passenger vehicles segment
faltered in 2013-14 while that of commercial vehicles and three wheelers recorded
negative growths in three years during this five year period.
Table 1.1 Category-wise Production of Automobiles in India

3
1.5.3 Domestic Sales of Automobiles
Domestic sales of automobiles in India have followed an increasing trend over the past few
years (2010-11 to 2015-16). The buoyant economy, rising income, easy availability of
finance, together with several other factors have contributed to the growth in automobile
sales in India during this period. During the first three quarters of 2016-17
(April-December), year-on-year domestic sales of passenger vehicles increased by 8.6
percent while commercial vehicles registered a growth of 3.5 percent.
Sales of three wheelers and two wheelers recorded growth of 1.9 and 10.0 percent,
respectively during the same period. Going forward, the implementation of the Seventh
Pay Commission is expected to boost income levels as it will enhance the income of
4,700,000 serving government employees and 5,200,000 pensioners. This will result in
higher disposable income which is expected to spur passenger vehicles sales. Favourable
factors such as softening interest rates, stable fuel prices and higher disposable income are
expected to drive sales in the near future.
During the period analyzed i.e. from 2010-11 to 2015-16, there has been an increasing
trend in the sales of all categories of automobiles. While two wheeler sales have steadily
grown, other categories of vehicles have seen bumpy rides in terms of domestic sales.
Individual categories have mostly shown an increase except for commercial vehicles
which had three consecutive years of decline in sales (2012-13 to 2014- 15) before
rebounding strongly in 2015-16 to post a healthy y-o-y growth of 11.5%. Two wheelers
was one segment that witnessed consistent growth during each of the last five years.
Table 1.2 Category-wise Domestic Sales of Automobiles in India
1.6 Future of Automobile Sector in India

The Indian automobile market is tipped to become the third largest in the world by 2020
according to estimates by Ernst & Young. While many of the global OEMs are increasing
their designing focus in the Indian market, most of the new launches in the Indian market
are global successful mode.
Automobile sector has been opened up for FDI long back. Daimler BMW etc are all 100%
subsidiary of their parent companies with no local partners.The global automotive game
will be pretty much decided by twin forces for China and India.India automotive industry
is going through the transformation phase. Political stability, new regulations, increasing
competition and rising consumer expectations will shape the way auto manufacturers or
suppliers do their business in India. The long-term outlook remains positive for strong
fundamental reasons such as high GDP growth, adequate financing availability, higher per
4
capita GDP, decreasing unemployment, increasing disposable incomes, favorable
demographics, and rising consumer expectations. The new government’s efforts to
implement a GST, build smart cities, and revive key sectors such as mining and
infrastructure should boost job creation. Other key factors for substantial growth are higher
spending on infrastructure and the government’s focus on rural areas.
In fact, we expect the India automotive sales to exceed the US market by mid 2030s.The
engineering R&D services market is expected to be on a roll with increasing interest by the
global companies to set up their captive R&D centre in the country.
1.7 Car sales in India

Car sales in India (domestic sales) has crossed 3 million sales milestone for the first time in
a single calendar year in 2017 as the car makers in India sold a total of 32,29,109 units in
the Indian domestic market reporting a growth of 8.85 percent over sales in 2016. Strong
demand of SUVs in the UV space attracted the most growth in the passenger vehicle
segment. Overall in 2017, over 21.68 lakh cars were sold at a growth of 5.13 percent and
sales of Utility Vehicles (UVs) registered sales over 8.70 lakh units at a massive growth of
20.09 percent in 2017. Car manufacturers in India had sold over 20.62 lakh cars and 7.24
lakh UVs in 2016.
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) in passenger vehicles sales grew by 3 percent in
2017 when compared to 2016. Despite the shift to GST and addition of cess on SUVs and
luxury cars by the GST Council, the automakers have managed to post decent growth in
2017. Many automakers do believe that impact of demonetization and GST did slow down
the growth rate in 2017 which otherwise would have seen a double-digit growth.
Figure 1.3 Car makers Market share in India
Source: Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures5
India’s largest automaker Maruti Suzuki continues to dominate in India with a massive
market share of 49.6 percent in the Indian passenger vehicle space. Maruti Suzuki India
sold a total of over 1.60 million vehicles in India. In the ongoing financial year the
company is growing at almost 15 percent with exports almost similar to that in FY
2016-17. India’s second largest automaker is Korea’s Hyundai Motor India that crossed 5
lakh sales mark for the second time in a row. The company reported a total sales of over
5.27 lakh units and its plants in Chennai are working at full capacity to meet the growing
domestic and export demands.
5
https://www.financialexpress.com/auto/car-news/top-10-car-manufacturers-in-india-kno
w-car-makers-market-share-in-2017/1011187/ accessed on 4th May 2018
Top car makers in India (2017)
Rank Company Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 April - Dec 2017 Total
1 Maruti Suzuki 133768 120599 127695 1220460 1602522
2 Hyundai India 42017 42327 44757 398219 527320
3 Mahindra & Mahindra 20096 20605 25352 176312 242365
4 Tata Motos 14721 13957 17093 145336 191107
5 Honda cars 15592 14249 18950 129964 178755
6 Toyota 10336 11543 13796 103891 139566
7 Renault 8791 11198 12188 80315 112492
8 Ford India 7995 8338 8700 62554 87587
9 Nissan 4346 4807 5309 38928 53390
10 Volkswagen 4060 3965 4792 34979 47796
Table 1.3 Sales of Indian Automobile players

Source: Society of Indian Automobile manufacturer6
Society of Indian Auto Mobile Manufacturers (SIAM) also confirms that Indian
automakers are running at about 60-65 percent of its total production capacity and exports
are almost same as that of last years. For many automakers including Hyundai Motor India
the focus to meet demands in Indian market has resulted in holding up in exports.
Implementation of GST has also seen an adverse affect in car exports from India and the
6
auto industry is still waiting for a tax refund of over Rs 2000 crore from the Government of
India.
Indian automobile giants Mahindra and Tata Motors stand at third and fourth place
respectively. While for Mahindra it was a year of consolidation and we only saw new
facelifts and variants coming in, Tata Motors aggressively launched three new vehicles in
2017 in the form of Tata Hexa, Tata Tigor and Tata Nexon. Both the companies also won
the tender to supply government with electric cars in 2017. Mahindra sold a total of over
2.42 lakh cars in India while Tata Motors’ domestic sales stood at 1.91 lakh
units. Mahindra has a market share of 7.5 percent in India while Tata Motors market share
has gone up to 5.91 percent.
Figure 1.4 Yearly performance of passenger vehicles sub segments – PC, UVs and Vans
Source: Society of Indian Automobile Manufactures7
7
Indian-arm of Japanese auto makers Honda Cars India and Toyota Kirloskar had a decent
run in 2017 despite the frequent changes in taxation policy. Both the companies sell hybrid
cars in India and with additional cess on hybrid cars, Toyota decided to temporarily halt
production of its popular Camry Hybrid sedan. Honda Cars and Toyota’s market share in
India in 2017 stood at 5.33 percent and 4.32 percent respectively.
Renault India’s sales in 2017 dropped to just about 1.12 lakh units with its presence in the
market going up by 3.48 percent. Renault Captur was launched during the last quarter of
the calendar year.
Ford India’s domestic sales have climbed up after the launch of new Ford Ecosport and
overall in 2017 the company sold a total of 87,578 units with a market share of 2.71
percent. The company has accelerated its export activities from the country and is now
among the top exported from India in 2017.
With interest rates dropping down in December 2017 the outlook for the last quarter of the
ongoing financial year remains positive. SIAM believes that passenger vehicles sales will
grown at 9 percent by the end of this ongoing FY 2017-18. Starting of the last quarter, all
carmakers in India have increased its car prices across range by 3-5 percent due to rising
input costs and higher commodity prices.
Globally, India’s has a very good growth rate in the first 11 months of 2017 after Brazil that
has reported a massive growth of 55.18 percent by selling over 6.66 lakh cars when
compared to a lower base in 2016. Going forward SIAM, Auto industry is all gearing up for
Auto Expo 2018 which is when many future cars and SUVs will be showcased and expect
some big announcements from all participating car makers.
CHAPTER – 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Kumar et al., (2016)stated that most of the respondents are not willing to switch to other
brandswhich indicates that Hyundai has a loyal customer base. 59 of the 110 respondents
say that they recommend Hyundai to others which indicates that they are satisfaction
towards its products.It is found that age of the respondent has no effect on his decision
making in case of long time for delivery of LCV.
Manjunatha and Amulya (2016)examined the key determinants Brand Building

Strategies practiced by the automobile manufacturers in the Indian Small Car Market.
Taking the literature support from the past Brand Management researchers the survey is
designed to study the Brand building Dimensions such as, Brand Awareness/Brand
Knowledge, Brand Image, Brand Identity, Brand Positioning, Brand Trust, Brand
Associations, Brand Loyalty, and Perceived quality, across the small car manufacturers in
the Indian Automobile market. The survey is limited to five major cities of Karnataka state
(Mysore, Bangalore, Mangalore, Davanagere and Gulbarga) focussed on the automobile
brands such as Maruti-Suzuki, Tata motors, Mahindra and Mahindra, Hyundai and Toyota.
The Sample survey is designed with the help of multi stage sampling method & the sample
size is 1000 small car users across the state. SPSS is used to develop the associated mean
and standard deviation measures to analyse the formations of Strong/Weak brands.
Mabkhot et al., (2016) examined the mediating effect of brand satisfaction (BS) on the
relationship between brand image (BI) and brand loyalty (BL) among Malaysian customer
toward local automobile brands. Four hypotheses were developed to test hypothesizing
relationships among BI, BS on BL. Data collected from customers of automobile brands in
north Malaysia peninsula from three states which were Kedah, Penang, and Perlis. This
study applies partial least squares to a sample of 458 customers to test hypothesized
relationships. The findings indicate that BI and BS appear to have significant and positive
relationship with BL. BS mediates the relationship between BI and BL. The results are
compared with earlier findings and implications for further research are discussed.
Javed et al., (2015)examined the customer satisfaction for tata motors passengers carsin
Warangal district Andhra Pradesh. Their parameters of study are customer satisfaction
after usage of vehicle after sales and service quality, effects of pricing etc. A sample size of
100 respondents was taken. After collection of data this data is analyzed with the help of
percentage analysis. The result obtained from this study shows the most of the customer
are satisfied with the safety features, sales and service, easily availability of spare parts etc.
Lakshmanan and Gayathri (2014)explored that the various social factors like friends,
relatives, own familymembers,neighbours and ones own decision influence the car
purchase decision in the small car market,it was one of the family members that influenced
the car purchase decision the most.Out of the four factors namely methods of information
search, basis of evaluation of product, buying decisions: factors of attraction and post
purchase experience of the customers, the percentage have been calculated while Krushal
Wallis test has beenapplied to know the significant differences among the respondents
relating to different factors of purchase.
Hanaysha et al., (2014) examined the effect of product innovation and productquality on
brand image in addition to testing the mediating affect of brand trust between them. The
results indicated that product innovation has significant relationship with brand image.This
result was support by certain previous studies.
Saeedetal.,(2014)determined the influence of customer satisfaction, trust and commitment

over customer loyalty and empirical relationship of these variables on petroleum sector of
Pakistan. Questionnaire techniques were used to collect data from 200 respondents and
non-probability convenience sampling technique is used to collect data. Descriptive
statistics, correlation and regression techniques are used to analyze the data. Study explore
that if fuel provider want to do long term business with existing and potential customer and
make them loyal one, these companies have to increase the quality of fuel, improve staff
behavior and build trust over the quality of fuel and environment of outlet. These things
make customers a loyal patron of fuel provider.
Dua and Savita (2013)considered that satisfaction is crucial concern for both customers
and organizations. Satisfaction is a subjective concept and therefore difficult to determine.
It depends on many factors and varies from person to person and product to product. The
importance of customer satisfaction in strategy development for customers and market
oriented cannot be underdetermined. Now a day it has become very important factor for
each and every organization to enhance the level of customer satisfaction. The overall
study reveals that It was found that the customer are mostly satisfied with price , design,
safety, mileage, interior space, status brand name, comfort level, spares part and after sale
service.
Andervazh et al., (2013)investigate the relationship of customer satisfaction and brand

trust on customer loyalty. A total of 320 questionnaires were distributed to Iranian
Automobile consumers. The survey was distributed at Mahshahr and Abadan cities in
Iran). 25-items scale was taken into account for brand trust(8- items), customer
satisfaction(8-items)and customer loyalty(9-items).construct with a five likert scale
ranging from1(strongly disagree)to 5(strongly agree). The objective of the analysis to find
out whether is significant relationship between the variables. Results from the survey
showed that the relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty is positive and also
there is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.
Ghani (2012) suggested that reason for difference market acceptance on the firms brands.
Indeed this research also has opened up for further exploration in the area of relationship
marketing asia context, particularly in relation to branding context. Research along this
line is necessary, as it’s not only able to provide insights but also for generalization
purposes as well.
Kiyani et al., (2012)examined the effect of brand trust and customer satisfaction on
customer loyalty. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaire from 131
customers from twin city(Islamabad/Rawalpindi) of Pakistan. Results from the survey
showed that the relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty is positive and also
there is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. The
results reveal that both the independent variables customer satisfaction and brand trust
have a significant positive impact on customer loyalty.
Thiripurasundari and Natarajan (2011)analysed thatmajority of the car owners in

Pondicherry useMarutiAlto. It is followed by Hyundai Santro, Tata Indica and Maruti 800.
Among social factors it was found that self and family members influenced the brand
equity decision the most. It was followed by friends and relatives. Majority of the
respondents strongly agreed that price of the car, mileage, brand image, after sales service
and discount are important factors that influence the car buyer’s decision. Out of five
factors namely knowledge, relationship, application, preference and loyalty, the brand
application factor has been rated as the most important factor in the car industry in
Pondicherry.
Jahanshahi et al., (2011)studied that the links between quality, customer satisfaction
andloyalty are one of the most popular research topics among service researchers.
(Pilkington and chai (2008) studied the importance of quality products and services on
customer satisfaction and found out that loyal customers mostly lie in category of
customers who have used higher quality products. This implies that better quality of
products tends to increase customers loyalty.
Nam et al., (2011)investigated that the mediating effects of consumer satisfaction on the
relationship between consumer-based brand equity and brand loyalty in the hotel and
restaurant industry. Based on a sample of 378 customers and using structural equation
modelling approach, the five dimensions of brand equity—physical quality, staff
behaviour, ideal self-congruence, brand identification and lifestyle-congruence are found
to have positive effects on consumer satisfaction. The findings of the study suggest that
consumer satisfaction partially mediates the effects of staff behaviour, ideal
self-congruence and brand identification on brand loyalty. The effects of physical quality
and lifestyle-congruence on brand loyalty are fully mediated by consumer satisfaction.
Liao et al., (2010) investigated the relationships among brand trust, customer satisfaction,
brand loyalty, and word-of-mouth. Nowadays, the automotive industry is facing the
competitive environment. Whether the industry can enhance brand trust, increase customer
satisfaction, and then improve brand loyalty and word-of-mouth, which is the key issue of
this study. Toyota was selected as the object of this study. 375 questionnaires were
provided and 258 valid replies were received. This study uses the structural equation model
to empirically explore the relationships among brand trust, customer satisfaction, brand
loyalty, and word-of-mouth. The results indicate the best model is causal chain, that is,
brand trust must affect brand loyalty through customer satisfaction initially, and then
impact word-of-mouth through brand loyalty.
Singhi and Gupta (2010)stated that every marketer makes efforts to create customer
delight bysatisfying its customers in the best possible way. This is the only strategy to
maintain brand loyalty among the customers. The automobile industry competes within the
industry itself through the distinctive factors it own that attracts customers.
CHAPTER – 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To analyse the impact of brand satisfaction on consumer loyalty on cars.
 To analyse the impact of brand trust on consumer loyalty on cars.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

A research design is the arrangement of condition for collection and analysis of data in a
manner that aims to combine relevance to research purpose with economy in procedure.
The present study follows a descriptive design. In a way it includes survey and fact finding
of different kinds, methods of data collection were used.
3.3 SAMPLE DESIGN

3.3.1 Population
The population of the study consists of all Ludhiana citizens who have a car.
3.3.2 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The selection of the respondents was done on the basis of judgmental sampling
technique.
3.3.3 SAMPLE SIZE

The number of respondents included in the study was 200 Ludhiana citizens.
3.4 DATA COLLECTION

The data with respect to the study was collected in both ways, i.e.
(i) Primary Data
(ii) Secondary Data
As far as Primary Data is concerned, The Research was more of a sample survey; making
the respondents fill the Questionnaire has collected the data. The respondents personally
filled the questionnaires and their attributes regarding the study were collected.
The purpose of Secondary Data, the researcher has reviewed the literature like books by
famous authors, internet searching and different articles published in academics journals
and magazines, newspapers, etc.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS TOOL/TECHNIQUE

For data analysis descriptive statistics and regression analysis has been used as statistical
tools in this specific study.Data analysis provided the relationships of the independent
variables with dependent variables. Descriptiveanalyses and frequency distributions
procedures were used to determine thepercentages and mean score for the study.
Correlation analysis showed the statistical measurements for the relationships between the
study variables and to determine whether statistically significant relationships existed
between Customer loyalty with brand trust and customer satisfaction as perceived by their
direct reports.
SPSS version 19 was used to conduct correlational analysis and in order to test the
hypothesized research model, the descriptive statistics of respondents, correlation and
regression were also analyzed beforehand. SPSS version 19 was used to analyze the
demographic characteristics, and to conduct descriptive and inferential analysis.
3.7 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

There is no relationship between brand trust and customer satisfaction.
There is a relationship between brand trust and customer satisfaction.
There is no relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty.

There is a relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty.
There is no relationship between brand trust with brand satisfaction and customer loyalty.
There is a relationship between brand trust with brand satisfaction and customer loyalty.
Hypothesis 2: There is significant impact of independent variable brand trust with

dependent variable brand satisfaction and Customer loyalty.
There is no significant impact of brand trust on brand satisfaction.
There is significant impact of brand trust on brand satisfaction.
There is no significant impact of brand trust on customer loyalty.

There is a significant impact of brand trust on customer loyalty.
Independent Variable has no significant impact on dependent variable.

Independent Variable has significant impact on dependent variable.
3.8 LIMITATIONS
1. This study does not take into consideration consumer behavior regarding small cars.
2. The study was conducted in one center i.e. Ludhiana. This restricts the scope of research by
limiting the spread across India.
3. The study would be more comprehensive if the data collected was over a period of time,
and with a panel.
4. The car market in India is extremely dynamic, after the completion of the data collection
some manufacturers may have pulled out certain models while some may have come up
with new models in the market, this study does not capture those changes.
CHAPTER – 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table No. 4.1 Demographic profile of the respondents
Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
Age
Below 20 years 38 19.0
21 - 30 years 135 67.5
31 - 40 years 15 7.5
More than 40 years 12 6.0
Total 200 100.0
Marital Status
Single 133 66.5
Married 67 33.5
Total 200 100.0
Gender
Male 162 81.0
Female 38 19.0
Total 200 100.0
Monthly Income
Below Rs. 15,000 59 29.5
Rs. 16,000 – 30,000 86 43.0
Rs.31,000 – 50,000 34 17.0
Rs. 50,000 and above 21 10.5
Total 200 100.0
Education Qualification
Graduation 90 45.0
Post-Graduation 88 44.0
Diploma 16 8.0
Others 6 3.0
Total 200 100.0
The above table shows that 67.5% of the respondents are belonging to the age group of 21
– 30 years, 19% of the respondents are belonging to the age group of less than 20 years, 7.5
% of them fall into 31 – 40 years of age group and the rest of 6 % of the respondents are
belonging to the age group of more than 40 years. Majority (67.5%) of the respondents are
belonging to the age groups of 21 to 30 years. It indicates that the majority of the
respondents are relatively belongs to the middle age group.
In the marital status category, maximum number (66.5%) of respondents married and rest
of the 33.5% of them are unmarried. Majority of the respondents are married.
In gender category, Maximum portion of the (81%) of respondents lie to the gender group
instead of female group, whereas 19% of them female respondents participated in this
survey.
It is revealed from the table that 43% of the respondent’s monthly income ranges between
16,000 to 30,000 rupees, 29.5% of respondent’s monthly income ranges between below
25,000 rupees, 17% of the respondents lies into 31,000-50,000 rupees and 10.5% of
respondent’s monthly income ranges between more than 50,000 rupees. Majority of the
respondents monthly income ranges between 16,000-30,000 rupees. It indicates that the
majority of the respondents’ monthly income is relatively lower.
In education qualification, 45% of the respondents having graduation degree, whereas 44%
of the respondents are post graduate, 8% diploma holder participate in this survey, 3% of
other degree holder take survey.
4.2 I trust the manufacturer of the automobile I am evaluating.
Table 4.2 showing frequency of respondents trust the automobile manufacturer, they are
evaluated
Frequency Percent Mean Score
Strongly Agree 61 30.5
Agree 81 40.5
Neutral 34 17.0 3.85
Disagree 16 8.0
Strongly Disagree 8 4.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.2 showing frequency of respondents trust the automobile manufacturer, they are
evaluated
Interpretation
The above table and figure clearly shown that 40.5% of the respondents agree that they
trust the manufacturer of the automobile, they are evaluating, whereas 30.5% of them
strongly agree, 17% of them neither agree nor disagree, 8% disagree and remaining 4% of
the respondents strongly disagree with statement. The mean score 3.85 clearly shows that most
of the respondents agree with above fact.
4.3 I rely on the manufacturer of the automobile I am evaluating.
Table 4.3 showing frequency of respondents rely on the manufacturer of the automobile I
they are evaluating.
Agree 82 41.0
Neutral 27 13.5 4.12
Disagree 12 6.0
Strongly Disagree 1 .5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.3 showing frequency of respondents rely on the manufacturer of the automobile I
they are evaluating.
Interpretation
From the table and chart it can be revealed that 41% of the respondents agree that they rely
on the manufacturer of the automobile they are evaluating, whereas 39% of them strongly
agree, 13.5% of them neither agree nor disagree, 6% disagree and only 1 respondents
strongly disagree with statement that they rely on the manufacturer of the automobile they
are evaluating. The mean score 4.12 clearly indicate that most of the respondents strongly
agree that they rely on the manufacturer of the automobile, they are evaluated.
4.4 The manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating is a dependable
Table 4.4 showing the manufacturer of automobile, respondents are evaluating is a
dependable
Agree 54 27.0
Neutral 45 22.5 3.13
Disagree 54 27.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.4 showing the manufacturer of automobile, respondents are evaluating is a

dependable
Interpretation
The above clearly depicts that 27% of the respondents agree that the manufacturer of
automobile they are evaluating is a dependable, on other hand next 27% of them disagree
with statement. 22.5% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree, 15% of them strongly
agree and next 8.5% of them strongly disagree with statement. Most of the respondents
agree with statement that the manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluating is a
dependable, which clearly shown from mean score of 3.13.
4.5 The manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating is honest.
Table 4.5 showing the number of respondents thinks that the manufacturer of automobile,
they are evaluated is honest.
Agree 56 28.0
3.37
Neutral 46 23.0
Disagree 39 19.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.5 showing the number of respondents thinks that the manufacturer of
Interpretation
The above bar diagram represents that most of the respondent agree that the manufacturer
of automobile, they are evaluate are honest, whereas 23% of them neither agree nor
disagree, 22% strongly agree with fact. 19.5% of the participants disagree that the
manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluated are honest and remaining 7.5% of the
respondents strongly disagree with fact. Majority of the respondents given 3.37 mean
score, which shows that they are agree with statement.
4.6 The manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating is a safe company with which to
conduct business.
Table 4.6 showing the manufacturer of automobile respondents are evaluating is a safe
company with which to conduct business.
Agree 71 35.5
Neutral 27 13.5 3.93
Disagree 20 10.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.6 showing the manufacturer of automobile respondents are evaluating is a safe
company with which to conduct business.
Interpretation
The above bar chart shown that 37.5% of the proportions strongly agree with statement that
manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluated is a safe company with which to conduct
business, next 35.5% of the respondents agree, 13.5% neutral, 10% disagree and least 3.5%
of the proportions strongly disagree with above opinion. Respondents distribute 3.93 mean
score to the statement, which shows that they are agree that they evaluated is a safe
company which to conduct business.
4.7 I consider the manufacturer of the automobile I am evaluating to be generally
trustworthy.
Table 4.7 depicting the number of respondents consider the manufacturer of the
Agree 64 32.0
Neutral 54 27.0 3.47
Disagree 38 19.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.7 depicting the number of respondents consider the manufacturer of the
Interpretation
The above table and chart indicate that maximum percentage of the respondents consider
the manufacturer of the automobile they are evaluated to be generally trustworthy, while
next highest portion of the respondents neither agree nor disagree and 19.5% of the
respondents strongly agree. 19% of the respondents do not consider the automobile
manufacturer to be trustworthy and remaining 2.5% of the respondents strongly disagree
with statement. Overall mean score of this statement is 3.47, which shows that respondents
agree that they consider the manufacturer of the automobile they are evaluated to be
generally trustworthy.
4.8 I believe the manufacturer of the automobile I am evaluating does not take advantage
of its customers.
Table 4.8 showing the number of respondents believe that manufacturer of the automobile
they are evaluating does not take advantage of its customers.

Agree 87 43.5
Neutral 48 24.0
3.75
Disagree 18 9.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.8 showing the number of respondents believe that manufacturer of the automobile
they are evaluating does not take advantage of its customers.
Interpretation
The above bar diagram clearly depicts that most of the respondents believe that automobile
manufacturer does not take advantage of its customer, whereas 24% of them neither agree
nor disagree, 22% strongly agree,9% disagree and only 3respondents strongly believe with
statement their automobile manufacturer take advantages of its customers. The mean
score of 3.75shows that respondents who participate in this survey are agree that
automobile manufacturerdoes not take advantages of its customers.
4.9 I consider the company and people who stand behind the automobile I am evaluating
to be trustworthy
Table 4.9 showing number of respondents consider the company and people who stand
behind the automobile they are evaluated to be trustworthy.

Agree 45 22.5
Neutral 46 23.0 3.75
Disagree 48 24.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.9 showing number of respondents consider the company and people who stand
behind the automobile they are evaluated to be trustworthy.
Interpretation
The above bar chart clearly depicts that most of the respondents consider the company and
people who stand behind the automobile, they are evaluated to be trustworthy, whereas
24% of them disagree with statement, 23% of them neither agree nor disagree with fact.
Only 8.5% of the respondents strongly disagree with statement. Mean Score clearly shows
that most of the respondents agree with statement.
4.10 The automobile has exceeded my highest expectations
Table 4.10 depicting that the automobile has exceeded respondents highest expectations
Highly Satisfied 75 37.5
Satisfied 83 41.5
Neutral 26 13.0 4.05
Dissatisfied 9 4.5
Highly Dissatisfied 7 3.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.10 depicting that the automobile has exceeded respondents highest expectations
Interpretation
The above chart clearly indicate that maximum number of respondents satisfied with
statement that the automobile has exceeded their highest expectations, whereas 37.5% of
them highly satisfied, 13% of them neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4.5% of them
dissatisfied and only 3.5% of the respondents highly dissatisfied with statement. The mean
score distributed by respondents is 4.05, which indicates that they are highly satisfied with
statement.
4.11 I rely on the manufacturer of the automobile I am evaluating
Table 4.11 showing the number of respondents rely on manufacturer of the automobile
they are evaluating
Satisfied 78 39.0
Neutral 39 19.5 3.92
Dissatisfied 12 6.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.11 showing the number of respondents rely on manufacturer of the automobile
they are evaluating
Interpretation
The above chart clearly depicts that 39% of the respondents satisfied with statement that
they rely on the manufacturer of the automobile, they are evaluated, whereas 32% of them
highly satisfied with it. 19.5% of them neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with statement, 6%
dissatisfied and only 3% of them highly dissatisfied with statement. The mean score (3.92),
indicates that respondents are satisfied that they rely on the manufacturer of the automobile
they are evaluated.
4.12 The automobile is exactly what I needed
Table 4.12 showing the automobile is exactly what respondents needed.
Satisfied 60 30.0
Neutral 35 17.5 3.41
Dissatisfied 37 18.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.12 showing the automobile is exactly what respondents needed.
Interpretation
The above diagram clearly depict that 30% of the respondents satisfied that the automobile
is exactly what they needed, while 24.5% of them highly satisfied, 18.5% of them
dissatisfied, 17% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and only 9.5% of them highly
dissatisfied with statement. The mean score 3.22 shows that majority of the respondents are
satisfied with above statement that automobile is exactly what they needed.
4.13 My choice to buy or lease this piece of automobile was a wise one
Table 4.13 showing the respondents choice to buy or lease this piece of automobile was a
wise one
Satisfied 83 41.5
Neutral 30 15.0 4.07
Dissatisfied 10 5.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.13 showing the respondents choice to buy or lease this piece of automobile was a
wise one
Interpretation
From the table and figure, it revealed that 41.5% of the respondents satisfied with their
choice to buy or lease this piece of automobile was a wise one, on another way 37% of
them highly satisfied and 15% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their choice to buy or
lease this piece of automobile was wise one and only 3 respondents highly dissatisfied with
above statement. Respondents are highly satisfied with above statement, so that they
distribute 4.07 mean score.
4.14 I am satisfied with my decision to buy or lease the piece of automobile.
Table 4.14 showing the respondents are satisfied with their decision to buy or lease the
piece of automobile.
Satisfied 75 37.5
Neutral 40 20.0 3.94
Dissatisfied 8 4.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.14 showing the respondents are satisfied with their decision to buy or lease the
piece of automobile.
Interpretation
The above table and figure clearly depicts that 37.5% of the respondents satisfied with
their decision to buy or lease the piece of automobile, whereas next highest portion
(34.5%) highly satisfied with above fact. 20% of the respondents neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with statement, 4% dissatisfied and next 4% of them highly dissatisfied with
opinion.
4.15 I am sure that it was the right thing to do to buy or lease the automobile.
Table 4.15 depicting that respondents are sure that it was the right thing to do to buy or
lease the automobile.

Satisfied 80 40.0
Neutral 40 20.0
3.51
Dissatisfied 19 9.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.15 depicting that respondents are sure that it was the right thing to do to buy or
lease the automobile.
Interpretation
The above bar diagram represents that 40% of the respondent satisfied that they are sure
that it was the right thing to do to buy or lease the automobile, while next 20.5% of them
highly satisfied, 20% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 10% highly dissatisfied and
remaining 9.5% of the respondents dissatisfied that they are sure that it was the right
thing to do to buy or lease the automobile. The mean score shows that maximum number
of respondents satisfied that they are sure that it was the right thing to do to buy or lease
the automobile.
4.16 Using this automobile has been a good experience.
Table 4.16 showing the respondents opinion towards experience with automobile.
Satisfied 60 30.0
Neutral 57 28.5 3.49
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.16 showing the respondents opinion towards experience with automobile.
Interpretation
The above figure indicate that 30% of the respondents satisfied that this automobile has
been a good experience, whereas next 28.5% of them neutral, 21.5% of them highly
satisfied, 16.5% of them dissatisfied and remanding 3.5% of the respondents highly
dissatisfied with statement that they have a good experience with automobile, they
evaluated.
4.17 I have been delighted with the automobile I am evaluating
Table 4.17 showing the respondents has been delighted with the automobile, they are
evaluating.
Satisfied 72 36.0
Neutral 33 16.5 2.85
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.17 showing the respondents has been delighted with the automobile, they are
evaluating.
Interpretation
The above chart clearly depicts that 36% of the respondents satisfied that they have been
delighted with the automobile, they are evaluated, on other hand next highest proportion of
the respondents dissatisfied with statement, 16.5% of them neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, 12% highly dissatisfied and only 3% of them highly satisfied with above fact.
The mean score (2.85) clearly depicts that respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
that they have delighted with automobile company.
4.18 I use automobile from the company I am evaluating because it is the best choice for
me.
Table 4.18 showing the respondents use automobile from the company they are evaluating
because it is the best choice for us.
Agree 83 41.5
Neutral 47 23.5 3.00
Disagree 45 22.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.18 showing the respondents use automobile from the company they are evaluating
because it is the best choice for us.
Interpretation
The above chart represents that 41.5% of the respondents agree that they use automobile
from the company, they are evaluated because it is best choice for us, whereas 23.5% of
them neither agree nor disagree, 22.5% of them disagree, 11% of them strongly disagree
and only 3 respondents strongly agree with above fact. Most of the respondents agree with
statement that they use automobile from the company, they are evaluated because it is best
choice for us.
4.19 I consider myself to be a loyal patron of the manufacturer of automobile I am
evaluating.
Table 4.19 showing the respondents consider myself to be a loyal patron of the
manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluated.
Agree 14 7.0
Neutral 33 16.5
1.78
Disagree 48 24.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.19 showing the respondents consider myself to be a loyal patron of the
manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluated.
Interpretation
The above chart depict that more than half percentage (52.5%) of the respondents strongly
disagree with statement that they consider themselves to be a loyal patron of the
manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluated, whereas 24% of them disagree with
statement. 16.5% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree and least 7% of the
respondents consider themselves to be a loyal patron of the automobile manufacturer. Most
of the respondents distribute (1.78) mean score, which shows that they are disagree with
fact that they consider themselves to be a loyal patron of the automobile manufacturer.
4.20 I am committed to the manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating
Table 4.20 showing the respondents are committed to manufacturer of automobile they
are evaluated.
Agree 34 17.0
Neutral 31 15.5 2.49
Disagree 95 47.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.20 showing the respondents are committed to manufacturer of automobile they
are evaluated.
Interpretation
The above chart indicate that near about half percentage (47.5%) of the respondents does
not committed to the automobile manufacturer, they are evaluated, on other hand next 17%
of the respondents who participated in this survey, are able to committed to the automobile
manufacturer, they are evaluated in present time. 15.5% of the respondents neither agree
nor disagree, 15% strongly disagree and only 5% of the respondents strongly agree with
above statement.
4.21 In the future, I would be willing to pay a higher price for automobile from the
manufacturer I am evaluating over competitive offerings.
Table 4.21 showing the respondents would be willing to pay a higher price for automobile
from the manufacturer I am evaluating over competitive offerings.
Agree 22 11.0
Neutral 16 8.0 1.91
Disagree 84 42.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.21 showing the respondents would be willing to pay a higher price for automobile
from the manufacturer I am evaluating over competitive offerings.
Interpretation
The above bar diagram clearly indicate that 42% of the respondents disagree that they
would be willing to pay a higher price for automobile from the manufacturer, they are
evaluated over competitive offering, whereas 39% of them disagree, on other hand 11% of
the respondents agree with statement and only 8% of the respondents neither agree nor
disagree with statement. Most of the respondents disagree that they pay a higher price for
automobile from the manufacturer.
4.22 I consider the manufacturer I am evaluating my first choice when buying/leasing
automobile.
Table 4.22 showing the respondent consider the manufacturer they are evaluating our first
choice when buying/leasing automobile.
Agree 49 24.5
Neutral 52 26.0 2.62
Disagree 38 19.0
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.22 showing the respondent consider the manufacturer they are evaluating our first
choice when buying/leasing automobile.
Interpretation
The above clearly shown that 26% of the respondents does not consider the manufacturer,
they are evaluated their first choice when buying/leasing automobile. whereas next 26% of
them neither agree nor disagree and 24.5% of the respondents agree with statement. 19% of
the respondents disagree and remaining 4.5% of the respondents strongly consider the
manufacturer, they are evaluating their first choice when buying/ leasing automobile.
4.23 If I had it to do all over again, I’d buy or lease automobile from a different company.
Table 4.23 showing the if respondents had it to all over again, they had buy or lease
Agree 72 36.0
Neutral 44 22.0 3.74
Disagree 13 6.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.23 showing the if respondents had it to all over again, they had buy or lease
Interpretation
The above table and figure indicate that majority of the respondents agree with statement
that if they had to do all over again, they had buy or lease automobile from a different
company, whereas 29% of the strongly agree, 22% neither agree nor disagree, 6.5% of
them disagree and next 6.5% also strongly disagree with above statement. Mean Score 3.74
clearly depicts that respondents are agree that if they had it do all over again, they had buy
or lease automobile from a different company.
4.24 I intend to keep buying the automobile I am evaluating.
Table 4.24 showing the respondents intend to keep buying the automobile they are
evaluated.
Agree 72 36.0
Neutral 34 17.0 3.22
Disagree 21 10.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.24 showing the respondents intend to keep buying the automobile they are
evaluated.
Interpretation
The above table and figure shown that most of the respondents intend to keep buying the
automobile, they are evaluated, whereas 19% of them does not buying the automobile and
17.5% of them strongly agree with statement. 17% of the respondents neither agree nor
disagree with statement and only 10.5% of the respondents disagree that they intend to
keep buying the automobile, they are evaluated. From the mean score (3.22), it can be
revealed that respondents are agree that they intend to keep buying the automobile.
4.25 I would not switch to a competitor, even if I had a problem with the products/services
of the automobile I am evaluating.
Table 4.25 showing the respondents would not switch to a competitor, even if I had a
problem with the products/services of the automobile I am evaluating.
Agree 44 22.0
Neutral 47 23.5
3.07
Disagree 73 36.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.25 showing the respondents would not switch to a competitor, even if I had a
problem with the products/services of the automobile I am evaluating.
Interpretation
The above bar chart that majority of the respondents disagree that they would not switch to
a competitor, even if had a problem with the products/services of the automobile, whereas
23.5% of the neither agree nor disagree, 22% of them agree, 14.5% of the respondents
strongly agree and remaining 3.5% of the respondents strongly disagree with statement
thatwould not switch to a competitor, even if I had a problem with the products/services of
the automobile I am evaluating.
4.26 I intend to purchase automobile from the manufacturer of the automobile I am
evaluating in the future.
Table 4.26 showing the respondents intend to purchase automobile from the manufacturer
they are evaluated in the future.
Agree 32 16.0
Neutral 43 21.5 2.55
Disagree 33 16.5
Total 200 100.0
Figure 4.26 showing the respondents intend to purchase automobile from the manufacturer
they are evaluated in the future.
Interpretation
The above chart depicts that 34% of the respondents strongly disagree with statement that
they intend to purchase automobile from the manufacturer of the automobile, they are
evaluated in the future, while 21.5% of them neither agree nor disagree, 16.5% of them
disagree, 16% agree and remaining 12% of the respondents strongly agree with above
statement. Most of the respondents rated 2.55 mean score, which shows that they are
neither agree nor disagree with statement that they intend to purchase automobile from the
4.28 Regression model summary of Brand satisfaction andcustomer loyalty.
H0: There is no significant impact of brand satisfaction on customer loyalty.
H1: There is significant impact of brand satisfaction on customer loyalty.
Variables Entered/Removedb
Variables
Model Variables Entered Removed Method
1 Customer loyalty . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Brand Satisfaction
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .242 .182 -.003 .51767
a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer loyalty
The multiple correlation coefficient is .242 while the coefficient of R-square is computed
as .182. This linear regression explains that independent variable explains that 18.2% of
the variability of dependent variable.
ANOVAb
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression .095 1 .095 .353 .553a
Residual 53.060 198 .268
Total 53.155 199
a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer loyalty
b. Dependent Variable: Brand Satisfaction
One way Anova table was performed to check the significant association between
brand Satisfaction and customer loyalty. From the table it reveals that P value of
Anova table is .533, which is more than significance level of .005. Hence there is
no significance difference between brand satisfaction and customer loyalty. So
the model is not statistically significant.
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.274 .178 12.777 .000
Customer loyalty .182 .074 .242 .595 .553
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Satisfaction
The variables having the significant .553 values are effective and the null hypothesis of
utilization of emotions was rejected as .553 is more than .005. So, there is no significant
impact of brand satisfaction on customer loyalty. The constant value of coefficient is 2.274
and coefficient of brand satisfaction is .182 which quiet less. Hence it can be concluded
that brand trust has less impact consumer loyalty.
4.29 Regression model summary of brand trust and customer loyalty.
H0: There is no significant impact of brand trust on customer loyalty
H1: There is significant impact of brand trust on customer loyalty.
Variables
1 Customer Loyalty . Enter
b. Dependent Variable: Brand Trust
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of
Model R R Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .114 .013 .008 .51475
a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Loyalty
ANOVAb
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .692 1 .692 2.613 .108a
Residual 52.463 198 .265
Total 53.155 199
a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Loyalty
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) 2.801 .265 10.585 .000
Customer Loyalty -.128 .079 -.114 -1.617 .108
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Trust
From Regression model summary, it is found that Brand trust has produced a significant
effect on customer loyalty. It has contributes 21.1% variance on the variable customer
loyalty. The result can also be confirmed from ANOVA table which reveals that f value
2.613 and p value which is greater than 0.05 level.So non-significant inference of brand
trust has been observed for customer loyalty. So the hypothesis is rejected that there is a
significant difference between brand trust and customer loyalty.
4.30 Regression model summary between brand trust and brand satisfaction &customer
loyalty.
H0: There is no significant impact of brand trust on brand satisfaction and customer
loyalty
H1: There is significant impact of brand trust on brand satisfaction and customer loyalty
Variables
1 Customer Loyalty, Brand Satisfaction . Enter
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
a
1 .278 .217 .117 .51514
a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Loyalty, Brand Satisfaction
In regression analysis the impact of brand trust on brand satisfaction and customer loyalty
is tabulated, become brand trust are taken independent (categorised value) variable and
dependent variables brand satisfaction and customer loyalty. The model summary shows
that the brand trust effect only 21.7% for brand satisfaction and customer loyalty which is
not good.
ANOVAb
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression .878 2 .439 1.654 .194a
Residual 52.277 197 .265
Total 53.155 199
a. Predictors: (Constant), Customer Loyalty, Brand Satisfaction
Coefficientsa
1 (Constant) 2.686 .298 9.003 .000
Brand Satisfaction .062 .075 .060 .835 .404
Customer Loyalty .137 .080 .123 -1.718 .087
a. Dependent Variable: Brand Trust
Regression equation tells that Brand trust is capable to provide any significant changes in
brand satisfaction and customer loyalty. The constant value is 2.686 and the coefficient of
brand trust is .062 and customer loyalty (.137) which is quite less. Hence it can be
concluded that brand trust has been less contribute for brand satisfaction and customer
loyalty.
CHAPTER – 5
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS, LIMITATIONS &
CONCLUSION
5.1 Findings
Majority of the respondents are belonging to the age groups of 21 to 30 years.
 Maximum number of respondents married and rest of the 33.5% of them are unmarried.
 Maximum portion of the respondents lie to the gender group instead of female group.
 Majority of the respondents monthly income ranges between 16,000-30,000 rupees.
 Most the respondents agree that they trust the manufacturer of the automobile, they are
evaluated.
 Large proportion the respondents strongly agree that they rely on the manufacturer of the
automobile, they are evaluated.
 Most of the respondents agree with statement that the manufacturer of automobile, they are
evaluated is a dependable.
 Majority of the respondent agree that the manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluate are
honest.
 Most of the proportions strongly agree with statement that manufacturer of automobile,
they are evaluated is a safe company with which to conduct business.
 Large portion of the respondents consider the manufacturer of the automobile they are
evaluated to be generally trustworthy
 Most of the respondents believe that automobile manufacturer does not take advantage of
its customer.
 Most of the respondents consider the company and people who stand behind the
automobile, they are evaluated to be trustworthy.
 Maximum number of respondents satisfied with automobile has exceeded their highest
expectations.
 Most of the respondents are satisfied that they rely on the manufacturer of the automobile
they are evaluated.
 Majority of the respondents are satisfied with above statement that automobile is exactly
what they needed.
 More than forty percentage of the respondents satisfied with their choice to buy or lease
this piece of automobile was a wise one.
 Most of the participants satisfied with their decision to buy or lease the piece of
automobile.
 Respondents are sure that it was the right thing to do to buy or lease the automobile.
 Thirty percent of the respondents satisfied that this automobile has been a good experience.
 Majority of the respondents satisfied that they have been delighted with the automobile,
they are evaluated.
 Majority of the respondents agree that they use automobile from the company, they are
evaluated because it is best choice for us.
 More than half percentage of the respondents does not consider themselves to be a loyal
patron of the manufacturer of automobile, they are evaluated.
 Near about half percentage of the respondents does not committed to the automobile
manufacturer, they are evaluated.
 Most of the respondents disagree that they would be willing to pay a higher price for
automobile from the manufacturer, they are evaluated over competitive offering.
 Majority of the respondents does not consider the manufacturer, they are evaluated their
first choice when buying/leasing automobile.
 Majority of the respondents agree with statement that if they had to do all over again, they
had buy or lease automobile from a different company.
 Most of the respondents intend to keep buying the automobile, they are evaluated.
 Majority of the respondents disagree that they would not switch to a competitor, even if
had a problem with the products/services of the automobile.
 Most of the respondents strongly disagree with statement that they intend to purchase
automobile from the manufacturer of the automobile, they are evaluated in the future.
5.2 Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of Brand Trust andCustomer
satisfaction on Customer Brand Loyalty. The resultof this study revealed mixed results but
the main objective results of current study where researcher found there was a significant
effect ofBrand Trust on Customer Brand Loyalty and the effect of Customer satisfaction on
customer brand loyalty was found significant in respect of Automobile sector at Ludhiana
city.
The study shows that there is a weak correlation between all variables like brand trust,
customer satisfaction and customer loyal. In case brand trust is much significantly and
strong relationship with customer satisfaction as compared to customer loyalty. The study
also shows that the customer loyalty effect only 35% for customer satisfaction and brand
trust which is negligible. Regression equation tells that customer loyalty is not capable to
provide any significant changes in customer satisfaction and brand trust. The constant
value is 3.252 and the coefficient of customer satisfaction and brand trust is .147 and .120
which is quite less hence it can be concluded that there are other factors than customer
loyalty which can contribute for brand trust and customer satisfaction.
5.3 Recommendations
The companies should concentrate on making superior engineering, design of the car and
should try to enhance their brand image as these are the most important factors which
buyers considers before purchasing these segment of cars.
Companies should introduce these segment of cars at little low price as the price is one of
the important factor for the people for not having a big car.Companies manufacturing
diesel cars should try to decrease its maintenance cost and noise as these two are the main
reasons for the people to have petrol engines.Companies should give proper training to
dealers, as some people were not satisfied by their dealers service and this could lead the
people to shift to other brands.
REFERENCES
Andervazh L., Gaskari R., Tarakmeh M.S., and Vafazadeh S. (2013). The Influence of
Brand Trust and Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty by SEM. Journal of
Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3 (9), 687-693.
Dua K., and Savita. (2013). A study of customer satisfaction with reference to Tata Motors
Passenger Vehicles. nternational Journal of Advanced Research in Management
and Social Sciences , 2(4).
Ghani, N. H. (2012). Relationship marketing in branding: the automobile authorized
independent dealers in malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 3(5).
Gupta, S. (2010). Determinants of brand loyalty for the various car brands.
http://accman.in/images/jan10/Article%2010.pdf.
Hanaysha J, Hilman H., and Abdul-ghani N.H. (2014). Direct and Indirect Effects of
Product Innovation and Product Quality on Brand Image: Empirical Evidence from
Automotive Industry. International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, 4(11).
Jahanshahi . (n.d.).
Jahanshahi A.A., Gashti M.A., Mirdamadi S.A., Nawaser K., and Khaksar S.M. (2011).
Study the Effects of Customer Service and Product Quality on Customer
Satisfaction and Loyalty. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
1(7).
Javed M., Gupta P., and Saxena V. (2015). Role of Service Quality and Customer
Satisfaction in Four Wheeler Automobile Service Industry: A Review.
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), 28 (6).
Kiyani T.M., Niazi M.R.U., Rizvi R.A., and Khan I. (2012). The relationship between
brand trust, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. (Evidence from automobile
sector of Pakistan). Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business,
4(1).
Kumar S., Rajeshwari B., Kumar P., and Narayana S. (2016). STUDY ON CONSUMER
PERCEPTION & BRAND LOYALTY TOWARDS HYUNDAI IN
VIJAYAWADA. IJER © Serials Publications, 13(1), 383-394.
Lakshmanan D., and Gayathri K. (2014). A study on consumer preference on users of car
in krishnagiri town. International Journal of Business and Administration
Research Review, 1(5).
Mabkhot H.A., Salleh S.D., and Shaari H. (2016). The Antecedents of Automobile Brand
Loyalty: Evidence from Malaysian. International Review of Management and
Marketing, 6(3), 596-602.
Manjunatha V., and Amulya M. (2016). Building Brands a Study with Special Reference to
Small Car market in India. IOSR Journal of Business and Management
(IOSR-JBM), 18 (8), 01-11.
Nam J, Ekinci Y, and Whyatt G . (2011). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research,, 38 (3), 1009–1030.
Saeed R., Rehman A. U., Akhtar N., and Abbas M. (2014). Impact of Customer
Satisfaction and Trust on Customer Loyalty Mediating Role of Commitment
(Evidence from Petroleum Sector of Pakistan). Journal of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, 4(2)214-221.
Thiripurasundari U., and Natarajan P. (2011). Factors facilitating brand equity dynamics
(A Study on Indian Car Industry). Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, 2(2).
QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear respondents,
I am student of PCTE, Ludhiana undertaking project on “A study on Impact of brand
trust and brand satisfaction on Consumer loyalty in automobile sector”. The main
outcome of the research is to develop a model to relate all the three parameters to know the
success of the organization. You are requested to fill up the questionnaire which is
basically a rating scale.
Demographic Profile
Please tick () in the appropriate space for your response
 Gender Male Female
 Age Group Below 20 21 - 30 years
31 – 40 years More than 40 years
 Educational Qualification Graduation Post-graduation
Diploma Others
 Marital Status Single Married
 Monthly Income Below Rs. 15,000 Rs. 16,000 – 30,000
Rs.31,000 – 50,000 Rs. 50000 and above
1. Please mark () in the box which you think is appropriate.

Where, Strongly Disagree stands for (SDA), Disagree for (D), Neutral means (N), Agree
or (A), Strongly Agree stands for (SA).
Statement SA A N D SDA
 I trust the manufacturer of the automobile I am
evaluating.
 I rely on the manufacturer of the automobile I
am evaluating.
 The manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating

is a dependable.
is honest.
is a safe company with which toconduct business.
 I consider the manufacturer of the automobile I
am evaluating to be generallytrustworthy.
 I believe the manufacturer of the automobile I am
evaluating does not take advantage ofits
customers.
 I consider the company and people who stand
behind the automobile I am evaluating tobe
trustworthy
2. Please tick the appropriate boxes for the level of your satisfaction towards
automobile.
*HS- Highly Satisfied, S-Satisfied, N-Neutral, D-Dissatisfied, HD- Highly dissatisfied.
Statement HS S N D HD
 The automobile has exceeded my highest expectations.
 I rely on the manufacturer of the automobile I am
evaluating.
 The automobile is exactly what I needed.
 My choice to buy or lease this piece of automobile was a
wise one.
 I am satisfied with my decision to buy or lease the piece of
automobile.
 I am sure that it was the right thing to do to buy or lease the
automobile.
 Using this automobile has been a good experience.
 I have been delighted with the automobile I am evaluating
3. Please mark () in the box which you think is appropriate.

Where, Strongly Disagree stands for (SDA), Disagree for (D), Neutral means (N), Agree or (A),
Strongly Agree stands for (SA).
Statement SA A N D SDA
 I use automobile from the company I am
evaluating because it is the best choice for me.
 I consider myself to be a loyal patron of the
manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating.
 I am committed to the manufacturer of
automobile I am evaluating.
 In the future, I would be willing to pay a higher
price for automobile from themanufacturer I am
evaluating over competitive offerings.
 I consider the manufacturer I am evaluating my
first choice when buying/leasingautomobile.
 If I had it to do all over again, I’d buy or lease
 I intend to keep buying the automobile I am
evaluating.
 I would not switch to a competitor, even if I had a
problem with the products/services ofthe
automobile I am evaluating.
 I intend to purchase automobile from the
manufacturer of the automobile I am evaluating
in the future.

Arvind Goyal Final Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arvind Goyal Final Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Affiliated to Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar.

Research Supervisor Submitted by

S. no. CONTENTS Page no.

Chapter – 2 Review of Literature

Chapter – 3 Research Methodology

Chapter - 4 Analysis and interpretation

Findings, Limitations, Suggestions and conclusion

S.No. Table Name Page No.

Table 1.1 Category-wise Production of Automobiles in India

S.No. Figure Name Page No.

Figure 1.1 Category-wise Share in Automobile Production in India (2015-16)

Figure 1.2 Automobile Production in India: Recent Trends

This study makes a significant contribution to existing knowledge by assessing the

1.3 Brand Trust

1.4 Brand Satisfaction

In contrast, cumulative customer satisfaction is an overall evaluation based on the total

1.5 Brief of Indian Automobile Sector

1.5.1 Trends in Production

Figure 1.1 Category-wise Share in Automobile Production in India (2015-16)

Figure 1.2 Automobile Producton in India: Recent Trends

Table 1.1 Category-wise Production of Automobiles in India

1.6 Future of Automobile Sector in India

1.7 Car sales in India

Rank Company Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 April - Dec 2017 Total

1 Maruti Suzuki 133768 120599 127695 1220460 1602522

2 Hyundai India 42017 42327 44757 398219 527320

3 Mahindra & Mahindra 20096 20605 25352 176312 242365

4 Tata Motos 14721 13957 17093 145336 191107

5 Honda cars 15592 14249 18950 129964 178755

6 Toyota 10336 11543 13796 103891 139566

7 Renault 8791 11198 12188 80315 112492

8 Ford India 7995 8338 8700 62554 87587

9 Nissan 4346 4807 5309 38928 53390

10 Volkswagen 4060 3965 4792 34979 47796

Table 1.3 Sales of Indian Automobile players

Manjunatha and Amulya (2016)examined the key determinants Brand Building

Saeedetal.,(2014)determined the influence of customer satisfaction, trust and commitment

Andervazh et al., (2013)investigate the relationship of customer satisfaction and brand

Thiripurasundari and Natarajan (2011)analysed thatmajority of the car owners in

3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

3.3 SAMPLE DESIGN

3.3.2 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

3.3.3 SAMPLE SIZE

3.4 DATA COLLECTION

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS TOOL/TECHNIQUE

3.7 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

There is no relationship between brand trust and customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 2: There is significant impact of independent variable brand trust with

There is no significant impact of brand trust on customer loyalty.

Independent Variable has no significant impact on dependent variable.

Figure 4.4 showing the manufacturer of automobile, respondents are evaluating is a

Frequency Percent Mean Score

Frequency Percent Mean Score

Figure 4.12 showing the automobile is exactly what respondents needed.

Frequency Percent Mean Score

1. Please mark () in the box which you think is appropriate.

 The manufacturer of automobile I am evaluating

3. Please mark () in the box which you think is appropriate.

You might also like