My friend was driving my car and met with an accident in the parking lot. The other car was at fault and she agreed at the spot. But when her parents arrived, she started saying that its not her fault.
You weren't there when this happened. All you have is your friend's account of what happened, and it may not be accurate.
My front hit her side. People I talked to said I would be at fault.
Well, YOU wouldn't be directly at fault because you weren't driving. Either your (presumably young) friend or the other driver would be at fault here. You might have vicarious liability, and I'll get to that in a moment.
The usual presumption, lacking evidence to the contrary, is that the car hitting from behind is the one likely at fault. Hitting the side of the other car with the front of your car gives a little more room for contrary explanations, but the details will matter as to who is at fault between your friend and the other driver.
My cars license plate is bent because of the impact. It is because the force was coming from the side. I meanto say that the other car is at a higher speed. If My car was at higher speed, it would not bend sidewards, in fact the other car will be impacted more.
Are you an accident reconstruction expert? If not, then your conclusions are not admissible in court and, frankly, aren't worth all that much because there is a lot more to what causes any particular type of damage than just speed. I don't think that as a matter of logic had your car been the faster car that the damage on her car would have been greater. There are a lot of factors that determine damage to a car, including but not limited to how well the car is built and maintained, what kind of traction each car had, the mass of each vehicle, etc. I've seen low speed accidents in which one vehicle barely had a scratch while the bumper of the other was totally crushed. Just for one obviously extreme example, suppose a small two door hatchback going 25 mph hits a military tank going 5 mph. Which will sustain the greater damage, do you think? It's not going to be the tank.
Even if you are an accident reconstruction expert, you suffer from two problems. One, you presumably didn't go out right after the accident to see exactly how the cars were positioned, what tread marks, etc., there were, what the surface was like, and so forth. That would limit your ability to reach a conclusion with a high degree of confidence, I think, on what occurred. Second, as the owner of the car in question, you'd be biased in your views of the matter. That would make it easy to cast doubt on the testimony you provide. In short, you'd need to hire an expert to testify as to what conclusions can be drawn from the damages sustained and other physical and photographic evidence there is of the accident. And that doesn't come cheap.
However, if you have insurance (and hopefully you do) and if the insurance covers this accident, the insurance company will handle any claim from the other driver regarding damages. If you've not notified your insurance company, you need to do that ASAP. Your contract requires it and you may risk the company denying your claim if you don't follow that requirement.
The friend of mine who was driving the car had only a learner's permit. I was not in the car when my friend was driving.
Here is where another problem comes up, and it could be big one. Your friend just had a learner's permit. That means he could not drive alone; he needed to have licensed parent, guardian, or other person over age 25 in the car with him while driving. If he was driving alone, he was illegally driving. That fact may end with him being at fault in the accident. Moreover, if you let him drive it alone knowing he had just a learners permit, you may be vicariously liable for the damages he caused. Finally, if he was driving illegally, your insurance likely excludes coverage for that. That would mean you and your friend would be on the hook for the damages caused out of your own pockets if he was at-fault here.