Imagine trying to continue an ordinary day under those circumstances.
You might be eating, working, resting, or talking with family.
Then the doorbell rings.
You explain that you did not order the item.
The worker leaves.
Moments later, your phone rings again.
Another courier wants to confirm the address.
You repeat the explanation.
Then someone else arrives with a different product.
You begin wondering when the next interruption will come.
Even if each conversation lasts only a few minutes, the repeated demands on your attention can become exhausting.
There is also the uncertainty.
When a person receives an unexpected delivery, they may initially assume there has been a mistake.
But when the pattern repeats, it becomes clear that the address is being deliberately misused.
Every approaching vehicle can become a source of concern.
Every unfamiliar phone number may represent another unwanted order.
Veeramani's frustration was evident in the videos he shared.
He questioned why people continued sending the products and emphasized that he did not have enough money to pay for them.
He also spoke about the delivery workers who were being unnecessarily drawn into the situation.
That detail is important.
His complaints were not limited to the personal inconvenience he experienced.
He recognized that the prank was creating additional work for people who had not caused the problem.
The online audience might have seen each order as a funny contribution to a viral joke.
But Veeramani and the couriers were left dealing with the practical consequences.
The more attention the situation attracted, the harder it may have been to stop.
Publicity can discourage harassment by exposing it.
But sometimes publicity also inspires imitation.
A person who sees a viral prank may decide to copy it.
Someone else may attempt a more extreme variation to gain attention.
The original joke becomes a competition for increasingly outrageous reactions.
That pattern helps explain why a seemingly simple request could escalate so dramatically.
The participants did not need to know one another.
They only needed access to the same publicly shared information and the ability to place orders.
And the person at the center of the incident was left trying to manage a situation he had never intended to create.
Chapter 7: The Delivery Workers Were Not Part of the Joke
One of the most important aspects of Veeramani's ordeal was the impact on delivery personnel.
When stories about unwanted online orders go viral, public attention usually focuses on the person receiving them.
The strange products make entertaining headlines.
The recipient's reactions become popular videos.
People laugh at the absurdity of the situation.
But there is another group of people whose experiences are easily overlooked.
The workers responsible for delivering the goods.
For them, an order is not necessarily a joke.
It is a job assignment.
A courier receives delivery information, travels to the destination, and attempts to complete the transaction.
The worker may have no idea that the person at the address never requested the product.
By the time the misunderstanding becomes clear, the worker may already have spent considerable time transporting it.
In a large city, deliveries can involve traffic congestion, narrow streets, unpredictable weather, and difficult schedules.
Workers may have multiple orders to complete during a shift.
An unnecessary delivery can therefore create problems extending beyond the recipient's doorstep.
It may delay other customers.
It may disrupt a planned route.
And depending on the company's payment arrangements and operational policies, repeated failed deliveries may affect productivity.
The exact financial consequences for individual couriers in Veeramani's case were not publicly established.
Nevertheless, the wasted journeys were among the concerns he raised himself.
He repeatedly asked pranksters to consider the delivery workers who were being sent unnecessarily to his address.
This changed the moral character of the story.
The people responsible might have imagined that they were simply teasing an internet personality.
But their actions also imposed work on strangers who had nothing to do with the original request.
A driver arriving with a refrigerator was not participating in an agreed comedy performance.
The driver was attempting to complete a delivery.
A worker carrying food to the address was not necessarily aware of the online trend.
They were following information supplied through a delivery platform.
The joke depended on treating these workers' time as disposable.
That is one reason unwanted cash-on-delivery orders should not be dismissed as harmless entertainment.
They exploit systems designed to provide goods and services to genuine customers.
They place unsuspecting workers in uncomfortable situations.
They may also create unnecessary handling and transportation costs.
The issue becomes especially serious when multiple orders are placed.
One incorrect address can be a mistake.
A continuing pattern of unauthorized purchases suggests deliberate misuse.
For Veeramani, this created an uncomfortable combination of embarrassment, stress, and frustration.
He was the public figure being targeted.
But he also had to explain himself repeatedly to workers who were simply trying to perform their jobs.
His videos showed that he wanted the disruption to stop for everyone involved.
The internet, however, was not finished.
Chapter 8: From Smartphones to Excavators and Military Tanks
As news of the prank spread, the range of products associated with Veeramani's address became increasingly outrageous.
The initial reports concerned recognizable consumer goods.
Televisions.
Smartphones.
Refrigerators.
Washing machines.
Food deliveries.
But soon, screenshots and claims involving much stranger purchases began circulating online.
Some users claimed that orders had been placed for JCB excavators.
Others shared images suggesting that an extraordinary military vehicle worth ₹70 crore had somehow been ordered using the same address.
These claims added a surreal new dimension to the story.
The idea of a military tank arriving at the home of a man who only wanted Diwali sweets was exactly the kind of absurd scenario likely to spread rapidly on social media.
However, there is an important difference between a screenshot of an alleged order and a confirmed physical delivery.
Contemporary reporting described the excavator and military-tank claims as part of the online escalation, with some screenshots characterized as imaginary or unverified.
There is no credible evidence that an actual military tank was dispatched to Veeramani's residence.
That distinction matters because viral stories often become more exaggerated as they circulate.
A real incident creates the foundation.
People add jokes.
Others invent increasingly extreme variations.
Eventually, the public may struggle to distinguish verified events from memes.
In Veeramani's case, the confirmed core of the story was already remarkable.
He had publicly requested sweets.
Unauthorized cash-on-delivery orders had been directed to his address.
The reported goods included expensive electronics and household appliances.
He complained publicly.
And he eventually said he was leaving town.
The military-tank screenshots did not need to be genuine for the incident to become extraordinary.
Yet their circulation revealed something about how online humor operates.
Once a joke attracts enough attention, people often compete to produce the most surprising variation.
The original idea becomes less important than the reaction it generates.
A refrigerator may initially seem ridiculous.
Then someone posts a washing machine.
Another person suggests a luxury television.
Someone else creates an image of a construction vehicle.
Eventually, the supposed purchases become so extravagant that the entire episode resembles a fictional comedy.