You know you have raised a valid point, if we take a look at Santro and Cuore as well as KIA Classic and counterparts of that period from Toyota or Honda. Toyota and Honda both cannot only be found in very large numbers in Pakistan as well as at global level but also Toyota and Honda cars are in a better shape as compared to KIA or Hyundai. On top of that Santro is expensive to maintain and is not even understandable to an average road side mechanic. Therefore, I agree with you that low maintenance cost, less frequent maintenance and the fact that older models of Toyota or Honda are still running perfectly is explanation of a quality vehicle.
However, a lot has changed now but even If Hyundai and KIA have improved a lot since 90s, so has Toyota and Honda over that period and that perhaps is the reason that despite receiving several awards. Hyundai and KIA are way behind Toyota or Honda when it comes to brand value or customer retention Forbes have rated Toyota among ten most valued companies in this world. Moreover, brand loyalty with Toyota is better, Toyota users do not often switch to another car brand.

There is just one thing I hope you can clear up for me.
As you know one of the conditions/stipulations in the 2016-2021 policy was that any/all companies coming under this policy will have to have parts availability for all their (respective) vehicles before hand. Meaning that, as soon as their vehicles hit the showrooms for sale, they must have all common parts available. As far as I remember, the condition stipulated that all the parts must be available in the market or at least with their authorized dealers network.
If that is the case doesn’t it work in the favor of the consumers?
If these companies are not carrying parts and are still saying that they are sorting their parts supply, doesn’t that mean that they are not following a condition/stipulation of the auto policy?
If they are not following this policy condition, anyone who buys their car who is having parts issue, which is translating into months of waiting, those people are well within their rights to take said company to court over it. Is that a correct assessment?
For me that does, in a way, provide some piece of mind. The companies are by law required to carry all parts from day one.
If someone buys one of their vehicles and unfortunately gets into an accident and requires major parts such as lights or doors for fenders to be replaced; if the company makes the alibi of saying they are not carrying the parts, then under the 2016-2021 policy that consumer will be well within his/her rights to seek a legal avenue to resolve the issue. This, I think, also extends to parts that are regularly changed such as filters, spark plugs and belts etc.
It is still a hassle I admit, but it as least makes sure that the consumer is not taken advantage of.
Is my assessment correct on this?

Thanks.