Analysis

CHAPTER - III
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
An attempt has been made in this chapter to explain the details relating to Socio-
economic profile of the respondents. The data has been collected from 100 respondents who
are residents of Pollachi Taluk, through a structured questionnaire. For the analysis following
statistical tools have been applied
 Percentage Analysis
3.2 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
Percentage refers to a special kind of ratio in making comparison between two or

more data and to describe relationships. Percentage can also be used to compare the relation
terms in the distribution of two or more sources of data.
Number of Respondents
Percentage analysis = -------------------------------- X 100
Total Respondents
1
Table – 3.1
Area of Residence of the respondents
No of
Area of Residence Percentage
respondents
Rural 40 40.0
Urban 46 46.0
Semi-urban 14 14.0
Total 100 100.0
(Source : Primary data)
INTERPRETATION
From the above table it is observed that out of 100 respondents, 40% of the
respondents are residing in rural area, 46% of the respondents are residing in urban area and
remaining 14% of the respondents are residing in semi-urban area.
The majority 46% of the respondents are residing in urban area.
2
Table – 3.1
Area of Residence of the respondents
50 46
45
40
40
35
Percentage
30
25
20
14
15
10
5
0
Rural Urban Semi-urban
Area of Residence
3
Table – 3.2
Age of the respondents
No of
Age Percentage
respondents
Upto 30 years 61 61.0
31-40 years 17 17.0
41-50 years 13 13.0
Above 50 years 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
From the above table it is observed that out of 100 respondents, 61% respondents
belong to the age group of below 30 years, 17% respondents belongs to the age group
between 31-40 years, 13% of the respondents belong to the age group between 41-50 years
and remaining 9% of the respondents belong to the age group of above 50 years.
Most of 61% respondents belongs to the age group of below 30 years.
4
Table – 3.2
Age of the respondents
70
61
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20 17
13
9
10
0
Upto 30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years Above 50 years
Age
5
Table – 3.3
Marital Status of the respondents
No of
Marital Status Percentage
respondents
Married 41 41.0
Unmarried 59 59.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
respondents are married and remaining 59% of the respondents are unmarried.
The majority 59% of the respondents are unmarried.
6
Table – 3.3
Marital Status of the respondents
70
59
60
50
41
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Married Unmarried
Marital Status
7
Table – 3.4
Type of Family of the respondents
No of
Type of Family Percentage
respondents
Joint family 46 46.0
Nuclear family 54 54.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that out of 100 respondents, 46% respondents belong to joint
family and 54% respondents belong to nuclear family.
Majority of 54% respondents belong to nuclear family.
8
Table – 3.4
Type of Family of the respondents
56
54
54
52
Percentage
50
48
46
46
44
42
Joint family Nuclear family
Type of Family
9
Table – 3.5
Number of Members in the Family of the respondents
Number of Members in the No of

Percentage
Family respondents
Below 3 members 10 10.0
3-5 members 65 65.0
Above 5 members 25 25.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
respondents said that less than 3 members in their family, 65% of the respondents said that
between 3-5 members in their family and remaining 25% of the respondents said that more
than 5 members in the family.
Majority of 65% of the respondents said that between 3-5 members in their family.
10
Table – 3.5
Number of Members in the Family of the respondents
70 65
60
50
Percentage
40
30 25
20
10
10
0
Below 3 members 3-5 members Above 5 members
Number of Members in the Family
11
Table – 3.6
Educational Qualification of the respondents
No of
Educational Qualification Percentage
respondents
Literate 6 6.0
SSLC 29 29.0
HSC 12 12.0
Diploma 6 6.0
Graduate 39 39.0
Post Graduate 8 8.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
respondents are literate people, 29% of the respondents are educated upto SSLC, 12% of the
respondents are educated upto HSC, 6% of the respondents are diploma holders, 39% of the
respondents are graduate holders and remaining 8% of the respondents are post graduate
holders.
Most of 39% of the respondents are graduate holders.
12
Table – 3.6
Educational Qualification of the respondents
45
39
40
35
29
30
Percentage
25
20
15 12
10 8
6 6
5
0
Literate SSLC HSC Diploma Graduate Post
Graduate
Educational Qualification
13
Table – 3.7
Occupation of the respondents
Occupation No of respondents Percentage
Government 41 41.0
Private 59 59.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
respondents are government employed and remaining 59% of the respondents are private
employed.
The majority 59% of the respondents are private employed.
14
Table – 3.7
Occupation of the respondents
70
59
60
50
41
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Government Private
Occupation
15
Table – 3.8
Monthly income of the respondents
No of
Monthly income Percentage
respondents
Upto Rs.15,000 16 16.0
Rs.15,000 - Rs.30,000 32 32.0
Rs.30,000 - Rs.45,000 28 28.0
Above Rs.60,000 24 24.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that out of 100 respondents, 16% of the respondents monthly
income is below Rs.15,000, 32% of the respondents monthly income is between Rs.15,000 –
Rs.30,000, 28% of the respondents monthly income is between Rs.30,000 – Rs.45,000 and
remaining 24% of the respondents monthly income is above Rs.60,000.
Majority of 32% of the respondents monthly income is between Rs.15,000 –

Rs.30,000.
16
Table – 3.8
Monthly income of the respondents
35 32
30 28
24
25
Percentage
20
16
15
10
0
Upto Rs.15,000 Rs.15,000 - Rs.30,000 - Above Rs.60,000
Rs.30,000 Rs.45,000
Monthly income
17
Table – 3.9
Type of Car
Type of Car No of respondents Percentage
Maruthi baleno 2 2
Maruthi Vitara brezza 11 11
Maruthi swift dzire 24 24
Maruthi lgnis 3 3
Maruthi swift 46 46
Maruthi wagon R 4 4
Maruthi Alto 800 7 7
Maruthi Alto K10 3 3
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that out of 100 respondents, 2% of the respondents having
Maruthi baleno car, 11% of the respondents having Maruthi Vitara brezza car, 24% of the
respondents having Maruthi Swift dzire car, 3% of the respondents having Maruthi lgnis car,
46% of the respondents having Maruthi Swift car, 4% of the respondents having Maruthi
Wagon R car, 7% of the respondents having MAruthi Alto 800 car and remaining 3% of the
respondents having MAruthi Alto K10 car.
The majority 46% of the respondents having Maruthi Swift car.
18
Table – 3.9
Type of Car
50
46
45
40
35
30
Percentage
24
25
20
15
11
10 7
3 4 3
5 2
0
Maruthi Maruthi Maruthi Maruthi Maruthi Maruthi Maruthi Maruthi
baleno Vitara swift lgnis swift wagon R Alto 800 Alto K10
brezza dzire
Type of Car
19
Table – 3.10
Frequency of Buying
No of
Frequency of Buying Percentage
respondents
Less than 2 years 14 14.0
2 - 4 years 59 59.0
4 - 6 years 20 20.0
Above 6 years 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that out of 100 respondents, 14% of the respondents have less
than 2 years buying y this car, 59% of the respondents have between 2-4 years buying this
car, 20% of the respondents have between 4-6 years buying this car and remaining 7% of the
respondents have above 6 years buying this car.
The majority 59% of the respondents have between 2-4 years buying this car.
20
Table – 3.10
Frequency of Buying
70
59
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
20
14
10 7
0
Less than 2 years 2 - 4 years 4 - 6 years Above 6 years
Frequency of Buying
21
Table – 3.11
Purpose of Buying
No of
Purpose of Buying Percentage
respondents
Personal usage 34 34.0
Business usage 15 15.0
Social status 40 40.0
Others 11 11.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
respondents have personal purpose for own the car, 15% of the respondents have business
purpose have own the car, 40% of the respondents have social status purpose own the car and
remaining 11% of the respondents have other purpose reason own the car.
The majority 40% of the respondents have social status purpose own the car.
22
Table – 3.11
Purpose of Buying
45
40
40
34
35
30
Percentage
25
20
15
15 11
10
5
0
Personal usage Business usage Social status Others
Purpose of Buying
23
Table – 3.12
Source of Buying
Source of Buying No of respondents Percentage
Dealers 18 18.0
Sub dealers 35 35.0
Mechanics 4 4.0
Friends 43 43.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
respondents are buying this car from dealers, 35% of the respondents have buying this car
from sub dealers, 4% of the respondents have buying this car from mechanics and remaining
43% of the respondents have buying this car thorough their friends.
The majority 43% of the respondents have buying this car thorough their friends.
24
50
45 43
40
35
35
Percentage
30
25
20 18
15
10
4
5
0
Dealers Sub dealers Mechanics Friends
Source of Buying
25
LEVEL OF PREFERENCE
Table – 3.13
Price
No of
Price Percentage
respondents
Highly Preferred 20 20.0
Preferred 38 38.0
Neither preferred 27 27.0
Not preferred 8 8.0
Highly not preferred 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that, out of 100 respondents, 20% of the respondents are
highly preferred with price of car, 38% of the respondents have preferred with price of car,
27% of the respondents are neither preferred with price of car, 8% of the respondents are not
preferred with price of car and remaining 7% of the respondents are highly not preferred with
price of car.
The majority 38% of the respondents have preferred with price of car.
26
40 38
35
30 27
Percentage 25
20
20
15
10 8 7
5
0
Highly Preferred Neither Not preferred Highly not
Preferred preferred preferred
Price
27
Table – 3.14
Brand name
No of
Brand name Percentage
respondents
Preferred 23 23.0
Not preferred 19 19.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with brand name of the car, 23% of the respondents have preferred with
brand name of the car, 10% of the respondents are neither preferred with brand name of the
car, 19% of the respondents are not preferred with brand name of the car and remaining 12%
of the respondents are highly not preferred with brand name of the car.
The majority 36% of the respondents are highly preferred with brand name of the car.
28
40 36
35
30
Percentage 25 23
19
20
15 12
10
10
5
0
Brand name
29
Table – 3.15
Model
Model No of respondents Percentage
Preferred 42 42.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with model of car, 42% of the respondents have preferred with model of car,
20% of the respondents are neither preferred with model of car, 11% of the respondents are
not preferred with model of car and remaining 2% of the respondents are highly not preferred
with model of car.
The majority 42% of the respondents have preferred with model of car.
30
45 42
40
35
Percentage 30
25
25
20
20
15 11
10
5 2
0
Model
31
Table – 3.16
Pickup
No of
Pickup Percentage
respondents
Preferred 37 37.0
Not preferred 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with pick up service of the car, 37% of the respondents have preferred with
pick up service of the car, 35% of the respondents are neither preferred with pick up service
of the car, 9% of the respondents are not preferred with pick up service of the car and
remaining 4% of the respondents are highly not preferred with pick up service of the car.
The majority 37% of the respondents have preferred with pick up service of the car.
32
40 37
35
35
30
Percentage 25
20
15
15
9
10
4
5
0
Pickup
33
Table – 3.17
Riding Comfort
No of
Riding Comfort Percentage
respondents
Preferred 21 21.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with riding comfort of the car, 21% of the respondents have preferred with
riding comfort of the car, 18% of the respondents are neither preferred with riding comfort of
the car, 28% of the respondents are not preferred with riding comfort of the car and
remaining 2% of the respondents are highly not preferred with riding comfort of the car.
The majority 31% of the respondents have highly preferred with riding comfort of the
car.
34
35
31
30 28
25
21
Percentage
20 18
15
10
5 2
0
Riding Comfort
35
Table – 3.18
Seating Comfort
No of
Seating Comfort Percentage
respondents
Preferred 42 42.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
The above table shows that, out of 100 respondents, 9% of the respondents are highly
preferred with seating comfort of the car, 42% of the respondents have preferred with seating
comfort of the car, 7% of the respondents are neither preferred with seating comfort of the
car, 22% of the respondents are not preferred with seating comfort of the car and remaining
20% of the respondents are highly not preferred with seating comfort of the car.
The majority 42% of the respondents have preferred with seating comfort of the car.
36
45 42
40
35
Percentage 30
25 22
20
20
15
9
10 7
5
0
Seating Comfort
37
Table – 3.19
Engine power
No of
Engine power Percentage
respondents
Preferred 28 28.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with engine power of car, 28% of the respondents have preferred with
engine power of car, 12% of the respondents are neither preferred with engine power of car,
20% of the respondents are not preferred with engine power of car and remaining 6% of the
respondents are highly not preferred with engine power of car.
The majority 34% of the respondents have highly preferred with engine power of car.
38
40
34
35
30 28
Percentage 25
20
20
15 12
10 6
5
0
Engine power
39
Table – 3.20
Fuel Efficiency
No of
Fuel Efficiency Percentage
respondents
Preferred 44 44.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with fuel efficiency of car, 44% of the respondents have preferred with fuel
efficiency of car, 13% of the respondents are neither preferred with fuel efficiency of car,
17% of the respondents are not preferred with fuel efficiency of car and remaining 8% of the
respondents are highly not preferred with fuel efficiency of car.
The majority 44% of the respondents have preferred with fuel efficiency of car.
40
50
44
45
40
35
Percentage 30
25
20 18 17
15 13
10 8
5
0
Fuel Efficiency
41
Table – 3.21
Availability of spare parts
Availability of spare No of
Percentage
parts respondents
Preferred 19 19.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with availability of spare parts, 19% of the respondents have preferred with
availability of spare parts, 27% of the respondents are neither preferred with availability of
spare parts, 14% of the respondents are not preferred with availability of spare parts and
remaining 10% of the respondents are highly not preferred with availability of spare parts.
The majority 30% of the respondents have highly preferred with availability of spare
parts.
42
35
30
30 27
25
Percentage 19
20
14
15
10
10
0
43
Table – 3.22
Tyre Quality
No of
Tyre Quality Percentage
respondents
Preferred 20 20.0
Not preferred 8 8.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with tyre quality of car, 20% of the respondents have preferred with tyre
quality of car, 32% of the respondents are neither preferred with tyre quality of car, 8% of the
respondents are not preferred with tyre quality of car and remaining 4% of the respondents
are highly not preferred with tyre quality of car.
The majority 36% of the respondents have preferred with tyre quality of car.
44
40 36
35 32
30
Percentage 25
20
20
15
10 8
4
5
0
Tyre Quality
45
Table – 3.23
Convenient to handle
No of
Convenient to handle Percentage
respondents
Preferred 23 23.0
Not preferred 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with convenient to handle of the car, 23% of the respondents have preferred
with convenient to handle of the car, 19% of the respondents are neither preferred with
convenient to handle of the car, 9% of the respondents are not preferred with convenient to
handle of the car and remaining 18% of the respondents are highly not preferred with
convenient to handle of the car.
The majority 31% of the respondents have preferred with convenient to handle of the
car.
46
35
31
30
25 23
Percentage 19
20 18
15
9
10
0
47
Table – 3.24
After Sales and Service
No of
After Sales and Service Percentage
respondents
Preferred 37 37.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with after sales and services of the car, 37% of the respondents have
preferred with after sales and services of car, 17% of the respondents are neither preferred
with after sales and services of car, 14% of the respondents are not preferred with after sales
and services of car and remaining 8% of the respondents are highly not preferred with after
sales and services of car.
The majority 37% of the respondents have preferred with after sales and services of
car.
48
40 37
35
30
24
Percentage 25
20 17
14
15
10 8
5
0
After Sales and Service
49
Table – 3.25
Time taken for service
No of
Time taken for service Percentage
respondents
Preferred 31 31.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with time taken for services of the car, 31% of the respondents have
preferred with time taken for services of the car, 12% of the respondents are neither preferred
with time taken for services of the car, 10% of the respondents are not preferred with time
taken for services of the car and remaining 11% of the respondents are highly not preferred
with time taken for services of the car.
The majority 36% of the respondents have highly preferred with time taken for
services of the car.
50
40 36
35 31
30
Percentage 25
20
15 12 11
10
10
5
0
51
Table – 3.26
Speed
Speed No of respondents Percentage
Preferred 29 29.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with speed of car, 29% of the respondents have preferred with speed of car,
30% of the respondents are neither preferred with speed of car, 21% of the respondents are
not preferred with speed of car and remaining 2% of the respondents are highly not preferred
with speed of car.
The majority 30% of the respondents have neither preferred with speed of car.
52
35
29 30
30
25
21
Percentage
20 18
15
10
5 2
0
Speed
53
Table – 3.27
Long battery life
No of
Long battery life Percentage
respondents
Preferred 34 34.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with long battery life, 34% of the respondents have preferred with long
battery life, 23% of the respondents are neither preferred with long battery life, 16% of the
respondents are not preferred with long battery life and remaining 7% of the respondents are
highly not preferred with long battery life.
The majority 34% of the respondents have preferred with long battery life.
54
40
34
35
30
Percentage 25 23
20
20 16
15
10 7
5
0
Long battery life
55
Table – 3.28
Majestic lock
No of
Majestic lock Percentage
respondents
Preferred 37 37.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with majestic lock of the car, 37% of the respondents have preferred with
majestic lock of the car, 16% of the respondents are neither preferred with majestic lock of
the car, 18% of the respondents are not preferred with majestic lock of the car and remaining
18% of the respondents are highly not preferred with majestic lock of the car.
The majority 37% of the respondents have preferred with majestic lock of the car.
56
40 37
35
30
Percentage 25
20 18 18
16
15 11
10
5
0
Majestic lock
57
Table – 3.29
Smoothness
No of
Smoothness Percentage
respondents
Preferred 25 25.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with smoothness of the car, 25% of the respondents have preferred with
smoothness of the car, 16% of the respondents are neither preferred with smoothness of the
car, 12% of the respondents are not preferred with smoothness of the car and remaining 16%
of the respondents are highly not preferred with smoothness of the car.
The majority 31% of the respondents have highly preferred with smoothness of the
car.
58
35
31
30
25
25
Percentage
20
16 16
15 12
10
0
Smoothness
59
Table – 3.30
Less maintenance cost
Less maintenance No of
Percentage
cost respondents
Preferred 10 10.0
Not preferred 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with less maintenance of the car, 10% of the respondents have preferred with
less maintenance of the car, 2% of the respondents are neither preferred with less
maintenance of the car and remaining 2% of the respondents are highly not preferred with
less maintenance of the car.
The majority 86% of the respondents have highly preferred with less maintenance of
the car.
60
100
90 86
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 2 2
0
Highly Preferred Preferred Neither preferred Not preferred
61
Table – 3.31
Quality
No of
Quality Percentage
respondents
Preferred 65 65.0
Not preferred 4 4.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with quality of the car, 65% of the respondents have preferred with quality
of the car, 16% of the respondents are neither preferred with quality of the car and remaining
4% of the respondents are highly not preferred with quality of the car.
The majority 65% of the respondents have preferred with quality of the car.
62
70 65
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20 15 16
10 4
0
Quality
63
Table – 3.32
Appearance
No of
Appearance Percentage
respondents
Preferred 20 20.0
Not preferred 4 4.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with appearance of car, 20% of the respondents have preferred with
appearance of car, 53% of the respondents are neither preferred with appearance of car and
remaining 4% of the respondents are highly not preferred with appearance of car.
The majority 53% of the respondents have neither preferred with appearance of car.
64
60
53
50
Percentage 40
30
23
20
20
10
4
0
Appearance
65
Table – 3.33
Resale Value
No of
Resale Value Percentage
respondents
Preferred 27 27.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly preferred with resale value of car, 27% of the respondents have preferred with resale
value of car, 13% of the respondents are neither preferred with resale value of car, 11% of the
respondents are not preferred with resale value of car and remaining 4% of the respondents
are highly not preferred with resale value of car.
The majority 45% of the respondents have highly preferred with resale value of car.
66
50 45
45
40
35
Percentage 30 27
25
20
15 13
11
10
4
5
0
Resale Value
67
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION
Table – 3.34
Price
Price No of respondents Percentage
Highly Satisfied 35 35.0
Satisfied 29 29.0
Neutral 27 27.0
Dissatisfied 5 5.0
Highly Dissatisfied 4 4.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with price of car, 29% of the respondents are satisfied with price of car, 27%
of the respondents are neutral with price of car, 5% of the respondents are not satisfied with
price of car and remaining 4% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with price of car.
The majority 35% of the respondents are highly satisfied with price of car.
68
40
35
35
29
30 27
Percentage 25
20
15
10
5 4
5
0
Highly Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Price
69
Table – 3.35
Brand name
No of
Brand name Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 30 30.0
Neutral 18 18.0
Dissatisfied 23 23.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with brand name of the car, 30% of the respondents are satisfied with brand
name of the car, 18% of the respondents are neutral with brand name of the car and remaining
23% of the respondents are not satisfied with brand name of the car.
The majority 30% of the respondents are satisfied with brand name of the car.
70
35
29 30
30
25 23
Percentage
20 18
15
10
0
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
Brand name
71
Table – 3.36
Model
No of
Model Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 33 33.0
Neutral 29 29.0
Dissatisfied 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with model of car, 33% of the respondents are satisfied with model of car,
29% of the respondents are neutral with model of car, 9% of the respondents are not satisfied
with model of car and remaining 4% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with model of
car.
The majority 33% of the respondents are satisfied with model of car.
72
35 33
29
30
25
25
Percentage
20
15
9
10
4
5
0
Model
73
Table – 3.37
Pickup
Pickup No of respondents Percentage
Satisfied 38 38.0
Neutral 18 18.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with pick up service of the car, 38% of the respondents are satisfied with pick
up service of the car, 18% of the respondents are neutral with pick up service of the car, 14%
of the respondents are not satisfied with pick up service of the car and remaining 6% of the
respondents are highly dissatisfied with pick up service of the car.
The majority 38% of the respondents are satisfied with pick up service of the car.
74
40 38
35
30
24
Percentage 25
20 18
14
15
10 6
5
0
Pickup
75
Table – 3.38
Riding Comfort
No of
Riding Comfort Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 30 30.0
Neutral 12 12.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with riding comfort of the car, 30% of the respondents are satisfied with
riding comfort of the car, 12% of the respondents are neutral with riding comfort of the car,
23% of the respondents are not satisfied with riding comfort of the car and remaining 4% of
the respondents are highly dissatisfied with riding comfort of the car.
The majority 31% of the respondents are highly satisfied with riding comfort of the
car.
76
35
31 30
30
25 23
Percentage
20
15 12
10
4
5
0
Riding Comfort
77
Table – 3.39
Seating Comfort
No of
Seating Comfort Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 36 36.0
Neutral 15 15.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with seating comfort of the car, 36% of the respondents are satisfied with
seating comfort of the car, 15% of the respondents are neutral with seating comfort of the car
and remaining 10% of the respondents are not satisfied with seating comfort of the car.
The majority 39% of the respondents are highly satisfied with seating comfort of the
car.
78
45
40 39
36
35
30
Percentage
25
20
15
15
10
10
0
Seating Comfort
79
Table – 3.40
Engine power
No of
Engine power Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 27 27.0
Neutral 26 26.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with engine power of car, 27% of the respondents are satisfied with engine
power of car, 26% of the respondents are neutral with engine power of car, 12% of the
respondents are not satisfied with engine power of car and remaining 4% of the respondents
are highly dissatisfied with engine power of car.
The majority 31% of the respondents are highly satisfied with engine power of car.
80
35
31
30 27 26
25
Percentage
20
15 12
10
4
5
0
Engine power
81
Table – 3.41
Fuel Efficiency
No of
Fuel Efficiency Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 21 21.0
Neutral 21 21.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with fuel efficiency of car, 21% of the respondents are satisfied with fuel
efficiency of car, 21% of the respondents are neutral with fuel efficiency of car, 26% of the
respondents are not satisfied with fuel efficiency of car and remaining 4% of the respondents
are highly dissatisfied with fuel efficiency of car.
The majority 28% of the respondents are highly satisfied with fuel efficiency of car.
82
30 28
26
25
21 21
Percentage 20
15
10
4
5
0
Fuel Efficiency
83
Table – 3.42
No of
Availability of spare parts Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 11 11.0
Neutral 29 29.0
Dissatisfied 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with availability of spare parts, 11% of the respondents are satisfied with
availability of spare parts, 29% of the respondents are neutral with availability of spare parts,
2% of the respondents are not satisfied with availability of spare parts and remaining 21% of
the respondents are highly dissatisfied with availability of spare parts.
The majority 37% of the respondents are highly satisfied with availability of spare
parts.
84
40 37
35
29
30
Percentage 25 21
20
15 11
10
5 2
0
85
Table – 3.43
Tyre Quality
Tyre Quality No of respondents Percentage
Satisfied 29 29.0
Neutral 26 26.0
Dissatisfied 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with tyre quality of car, 29% of the respondents are satisfied with tyre quality
of car, 26% of the respondents are neutral with tyre quality of car, 9% of the respondents are
not satisfied with tyre quality of car and remaining 4% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied with tyre quality of car.
The majority 32% of the respondents are highly satisfied with tyre quality of car.
86
35 32
29
30
26
25
Percentage
20
15
9
10
4
5
0
Tyre Quality
87
Table – 3.43
Convenient to handle No of respondents Percentage
Satisfied 21 21.0
Neutral 39 39.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with convenient to handle of the car, 21% of the respondents are satisfied
with convenient to handle of the car, 39% of the respondents are neutral with convenient to
handle of the car, 14% of the respondents are not satisfied with convenient to handle of the
car and remaining 4% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with convenient to handle of
the car.
The majority 39% of the respondents are neutral with convenient to handle of the car.
88
45
39
40
35
Percentage 30
25 22 21
20
14
15
10
4
5
0
89
Table – 3.44
After Sale Service
No of
After Sale Service Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 48 48.0
Neutral 17 17.0
Dissatisfied 6 6.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with after sales and services of the car, 48% of the respondents are satisfied
with after sales and services of car, 17% of the respondents are neutral with after sales and
services of car, 6% of the respondents are not satisfied with after sales and services of car and
remaining 2% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with after sales and services of car.
The majority 48% of the respondents are satisfied with after sales and services of car.
90
60
48
50
Percentage 40
30 27
20 17
10 6
2
0
After Sale Service
91
Table – 3.45
Time taken for No of

Percentage
service respondents
Satisfied 27 27.0
Neutral 15 15.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with time taken for services of the car, 27% of the respondents are satisfied
with time taken for services of the car, 15% of the respondents are neutral with time taken for
services of the car, 11% of the respondents are not satisfied with time taken for services of
the car and remaining 8% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with time taken for
services of the car.
The majority 39% of the respondents are highly satisfied with time taken for services
of the car.
92
45
39
40
35
30 27
Percentage
25
20
15
15 11
10 8
5
0
93
Table – 3.46
Speed
No of
Speed Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 36 36.0
Neutral 27 27.0
Dissatisfied 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with speed of car, 36% of the respondents are satisfied with speed of car,
27% of the respondents are neutral with speed of car and remaining 9% of the respondents
are not satisfied with speed of car.
The majority 36% of the respondents are satisfied with speed of car.
94
40
36
35
30 28 27
25
Percentage
20
15
9
10
5
0
Speed
95
Table – 3.47
Long battery life
No of
Long battery life Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 29 29.0
Neutral 27 27.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with long battery life, 29% of the respondents are satisfied with long battery
life, 27% of the respondents are neutral with long battery life, 17% of the respondents are not
satisfied with long battery life and remaining 7% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied
with long battery life.
The majority 29% of the respondents are satisfied with long battery life.
96
35
29
30 27
25
Percentage 20
20 17
15
10 7
5
0
Long battery life
97
Table – 3.48
Majestic lock
No of
Majestic lock Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 38 38.0
Neutral 7 7.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with majestic lock of the car, 38% of the respondents are satisfied with
majestic lock of the car, 7% of the respondents are neutral with majestic lock of the car, 28%
of the respondents are not satisfied with majestic lock of the car and remaining 10% of the
respondents are highly dissatisfied with majestic lock of the car.
The majority 38% of the respondents are satisfied with majestic lock of the car.
98
40 38
35
30 28
Percentage 25
20 17
15
10
10 7
5
0
Majestic lock
99
Table – 3.49
Smoothness
No of
Smoothness Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 26 26.0
Neutral 18 18.0
Dissatisfied 2 2.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with smoothness of the car, 26% of the respondents are satisfied with
smoothness of the car, 18% of the respondents are neutral with smoothness of the car, 2% of
the respondents are not satisfied with smoothness of the car and remaining 20% of the
respondents are highly dissatisfied with smoothness of the car.
The majority 34% of the respondents are highly satisfied with smoothness of the car.
100
40
34
35
30 26
Percentage 25
20
20 18
15
10
5 2
0
Smoothness
101
Table – 3.50
No of
Less maintenance cost Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 23 23.0
Neutral 10 10.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with less maintenance of the car, 23% of the respondents are satisfied with
less maintenance of the car, 10% of the respondents are neutral with less maintenance of the
car, 19% of the respondents are dissatisfied with less maintenance of the car and remaining
12% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with less maintenance of the car.
The majority 36% of the respondents are highly satisfied with less maintenance of the
car.
102
40 36
35
30
Percentage 25 23
19
20
15 12
10
10
5
0
103
Table – 3.51
Quality
No of
Quality Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 42 42.0
Neutral 20 20.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with quality of the car, 42% of the respondents are satisfied with quality of
the car, 20% of the respondents are neutral with quality of the car, 11% of the respondents are
dissatisfied with quality of the car and remaining 2% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied with quality of the car.
The majority 42% of the respondents are satisfied with quality of the car.
104
45 42
40
35
Percentage 30
25
25
20
20
15 11
10
5 2
0
Quality
105
Table – 3.52
Appearance
No of
Appearance Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 42 42.0
Neutral 30 30.0
Dissatisfied 9 9.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with appearance of car, 42% of the respondents are satisfied with appearance
of car, 30% of the respondents are neutral with appearance of car, 9% of the respondents are
dissatisfied with appearance of the car and remaining 4% of the respondents are highly
dissatisfied with appearance of car.
The majority 42% of the respondents are satisfied with appearance of car.
106
45 42
40
35
30
Percentage 30
25
20
15
15
9
10
4
5
0
Appearance
107
Table – 3.53
Resale Value
No of
Resale Value Percentage
respondents
Satisfied 21 21.0
Neutral 18 18.0
Total 100 100.0
INTERPRETATION
highly satisfied with resale value of car, 21% of the respondents are satisfied with resale
value of car, 18% of the respondents are neutral with resale value of car, 28% of the
respondents are not satisfied with resale value of car and remaining 2% of the respondents are
highly dissatisfied with resale value of car.
The majority 31% of the respondents are highly satisfied with resale value of car.
108
35
31
30 28
25
21
Percentage
20 18
15
10
5 2
0
Resale Value
109

Analysis

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

Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER - III

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

3.2 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS

Percentage refers to a special kind of ratio in making comparison between two or

Area of Residence of the respondents

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

The majority 46% of the respondents are residing in urban area.

Area of Residence of the respondents

Upto 30 years 61 61.0

31-40 years 17 17.0

41-50 years 13 13.0

Above 50 years 9 9.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Most of 61% respondents belongs to the age group of below 30 years.

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

The majority 59% of the respondents are unmarried.

Joint family 46 46.0

Nuclear family 54 54.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Majority of 54% respondents belong to nuclear family.

Number of Members in the No of

Below 3 members 10 10.0

3-5 members 65 65.0

Above 5 members 25 25.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Post Graduate 8 8.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Most of 39% of the respondents are graduate holders.

Occupation No of respondents Percentage

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

The majority 59% of the respondents are private employed.

Upto Rs.15,000 16 16.0

Rs.15,000 - Rs.30,000 32 32.0

Rs.30,000 - Rs.45,000 28 28.0

Above Rs.60,000 24 24.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Majority of 32% of the respondents monthly income is between Rs.15,000 –

Type of Car No of respondents Percentage

Maruthi Vitara brezza 11 11

Maruthi swift dzire 24 24

Maruthi Alto 800 7 7

Maruthi Alto K10 3 3

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

The majority 46% of the respondents having Maruthi Swift car.

Less than 2 years 14 14.0

Above 6 years 7 7.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Personal usage 34 34.0

Business usage 15 15.0

Social status 40 40.0

Total 100 100.0

(Source : Primary data)

Source of Buying No of respondents Percentage