Even more troubling was the payment method.
The orders were reportedly placed using cash on delivery, commonly abbreviated as COD.
Under this arrangement, a customer pays for a purchase when the delivery arrives rather than paying the full amount in advance. Depending on the retailer and its policies, the payment may be collected in cash or through another accepted method at the time of delivery.
Cash on delivery can be convenient for legitimate customers. It allows people to receive an order and settle the payment at the door, making online shopping accessible to those who prefer not to pay online.
But the system also creates an opportunity for misuse when someone places an order using another person's address without permission.
The person whose home is listed as the destination may suddenly find themselves dealing with a delivery they never requested. They may have to explain the situation to the courier, refuse the package, or spend time clarifying that the order does not belong to them.
That appears to have been the problem facing Veeramani.
The people placing the orders could enjoy the joke from a distance, while he was left to deal with the consequences in the real world.
And the consequences were anything but small.
The First Unexpected Deliveries
Picture an ordinary day at home.
You are going about your usual routine when the doorbell rings. A delivery worker stands outside holding a package.
You open the door, expecting perhaps a letter, a small parcel, or something you genuinely purchased.
Instead, the delivery worker tells you that a television has arrived.
You explain that you did not order one.
The worker checks the details, looks at the address, and asks whether you are the intended recipient. You repeat that you never purchased the item and have no intention of paying for it.
After a conversation, the delivery is refused or otherwise dealt with according to the company's procedures.
You might assume that the matter is finished.
Then another delivery worker arrives.
This time, the item is a washing machine.
Before you have fully recovered from that interruption, someone else appears with a smartphone. Another delivery follows, and another after that.
Soon, the doorbell becomes a source of anxiety rather than an ordinary household sound.
That is the kind of situation Veeramani reportedly faced as the unwanted orders began arriving at his home.
The products were not merely inexpensive objects that could be ignored. Refrigerators and washing machines are large appliances. Televisions can be costly and fragile. Smartphones may be valuable enough that a single order represents a substantial financial commitment.
Each arrival could require an explanation.
Each courier might reasonably expect the person at the address to confirm the order and arrange payment.
And each time Veeramani had to explain that he had not purchased the item, he was forced to spend more time dealing with a problem he had not created.
The absurdity of the situation was that his followers had apparently turned his own front door into an unexpected shopping counter.
Except he was not the customer.
He had not chosen the products, compared prices, selected delivery times, or agreed to spend money.
He had simply asked for sweets.
The distinction mattered because a delivery address is not the same thing as consent to purchase something. Knowing where a person lives does not give anyone permission to order goods in their name or make them responsible for a transaction they never authorized.
Yet the reported prank continued to create precisely that kind of unwanted pressure.
A Television Worth Around $1,900
Among the details that made the story particularly astonishing was the reported price of one television.
According to the account, one of the unwanted television deliveries was worth approximately $1,900.
For many households, that would be a significant purchase requiring careful consideration and budgeting. A television at that price could represent a major expense, particularly for someone who had no intention of buying one in the first place.
Imagine being confronted with a payment request for that amount simply because someone else decided to play a joke.
Even if you immediately refuse the delivery, the situation can be uncomfortable. You may need to convince the courier that you are not responsible for the order. You might worry that more packages will follow. You may wonder whether someone has misused your personal information or whether the deliveries are part of a larger problem.
For Veeramani, the television was reportedly only one element of a much larger series of unwanted deliveries.
The refrigerators, washing machines, smartphones, and other products made the incident increasingly difficult to manage.
The problem was no longer simply that an individual had sent him something he did not want.
It was the repeated nature of the deliveries that transformed the experience into an ordeal.
One unexpected package might be dismissed as a misunderstanding. Two might be an unfortunate coincidence. But when expensive products keep arriving in rapid succession, it becomes difficult to treat the situation as an ordinary inconvenience.
The person receiving the deliveries has to make decisions again and again.
Should the package be refused immediately? Does the courier need an explanation? Is there a way to prevent further orders? Should the recipient contact the retailer or the delivery platform? Could another shipment be on its way?
And perhaps the most frustrating question of all: When will it stop?